ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

JUSTICE

The Secretary of State was asked—

European Court of Human Rights

Henry Bellingham: What recent representations he has received about UK withdrawal from the European Court of Human Rights; and if he will make a statement.

Chris Grayling: The coalition agreement commits the Government to the European convention on human rights and the Strasbourg Court. However, the differences between the two parties’ views on this subject are well known, so there will be no major changes before the next election, although, of course, it is my party’s intention that there should be afterwards.

Henry Bellingham: Does the Lord Chancellor agree with me that it is quite outrageous that the European Court of Human Rights has deemed whole-life sentences to be in breach of human rights laws? Is he aware that I used to be a strong supporter of the Court, but that I now feel strongly that the time has come when it is in our national interest to come out of it?

Chris Grayling: My hon. Friend echoes the view of many people in this country that the whole-life tariff ruling is entirely inappropriate. The Government are considering how best to respond to the ruling, but it is an example of why, in my view, the Court’s reputation in this country has fallen dramatically in recent times, and of why change is now so urgently necessary.

Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Secretary of State think more carefully about this issue? Were Britain to withdraw from the European convention on human rights, and consequently, from the European Court, where would our moral stature be in condemning human rights abuses in any other European country, and what would be the future for human rights in this country? Does he not think that, instead, he should be more positive and proactive about the necessity of human rights legislation to protect us all?

Chris Grayling: Let us be absolutely clear: human rights are important and remain a central part of what this Government, and any Government in this country, do to promote good practice around the world. That does not necessarily mean, however, that we all have to endorse the working of a Court that, in my view, has lost its way.

Christopher Chope: It is five months since the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the whole-life tariff case, so why are the Government still vacillating over what to do about it? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the problem is that the European Court of Human Rights is seeking to legislate rather than to interpret the law, because the whole-life tariff was a substitute for capital punishment?

Chris Grayling: My view is that it is not appropriate for the Court to seek to make law for this country in such an area, which should be a matter for Parliament. My hon. Friend will understand, particularly given the realities of coalition politics, the care we are taking with our response, but he should be under no doubt that both I and the Prime Minister believe that the ruling takes us into a place where we should not be.

Andrew Gwynne: Notwithstanding the difference between the two coalition parties in government, does the Secretary of State not believe that there are no examples of the Strasbourg Court defending our rights where domestic courts have failed?

Chris Grayling: That is an interesting point. Although we understand and respect the differences between the coalition parties on this matter, the Labour party is dancing on a pin. One week, it says that it opposes votes for prisoners; the next week, it supports the rulings of the European Court. As our party sets out its proposals over the next 18 months, it will be fascinating to see exactly where Labour stands.

Julian Huppert: Can the Secretary of State list the European countries that are not part of the European convention on human rights? Does he really think that Britain’s international standing would be enhanced by joining the club with Belarus?

Chris Grayling: It is important to say that my concern has always been about the Court, not the convention. As I have said to my hon. Friend in the past, anyone who reads the terms of the convention would find it to be a document that we would all agree with. The problem is the way in which it is being interpreted, which, in my view, has moved a long way away from the intentions of the people who drafted it in the first place.

Huw Irranca-Davies: This Government’s position on, and attitude to, Strasbourg was recently cited in Ukraine as a reason in defence of opposing one of the recommendations of the Court. Does the Secretary of State recognise that withdrawal from the Court would have implications for millions of people beyond our boundaries and beyond our nation?

Chris Grayling: The key point that the hon. Gentleman must understand is that we can be, and will continue to be, a beacon of propriety as regards human rights in this world, but that that does not mean that we have to
	continue to accept a jurisprudence that is treading into the territory that rightly belongs to this Parliament. In my view, this Parliament needs to address that issue.

David Nuttall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is no point in this country withdrawing from the European Court of Human Rights if we remain bound by the European Union and its charter of fundamental rights, because we will finish up being told what to do by the European Court of Justice?

Chris Grayling: As we renegotiate our membership of the European Union—as I hope and believe we will when we win the next election—it is important that we also address the legal position of the charter, which is not only an issue for this country, but conflicts directly, in a number of key areas, with the wording of the convention.

Departmental Contracts

Nicholas Dakin: What reports he has received on the progress of investigations of the alleged misuse of public money by private providers that hold contracts with his Department.

Chris Grayling: The Serious Fraud Office has launched a criminal investigation of issues that have been uncovered in relation to the electronic monitoring contracts that my Department holds with G4S and Serco. As that criminal investigation is taking place, I cannot comment further at this stage, but I will make a statement as soon as it is appropriate for me to do so.

Nicholas Dakin: Today we learnt that Professor Harrington had warned the Secretary of State against rolling out fitness-for-work tests as long ago as 2010. Also today, many experts, including the chief inspectors of prisons and probation, have advised against the privatisation of the probation service. Why is the Secretary of State a serial offender when it comes to ignoring expert advice?

Chris Grayling: Let us be clear about the matter that has been raised today. Civil service records show no such warning having been made, and no such warning was included in the reports that were produced at the time.

Andrew Bridgen: Can my right hon. Friend assure us that there will be a full review, across Government, of all contracts held by G4S and Serco, so that Ministers will be able to manage such contracts better in future?

Chris Grayling: I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. We are looking carefully at our own contract management approach and at the contracts that we hold. It is worth reminding the House, however, that the issues that are being referred to, and the contracts that we are looking at, date back to the time of the last Government.

Sheila Gilmore: We have several years of experience of multi-purpose companies that appear to bid for anything and everything, regardless of whether they have any particular expertise, and that is
	happening again with the roll-out of the personal independence payment. Promises that were made about the service that would be delivered are simply not being fulfilled. Is it not time for a complete review of contracting of this kind?

Chris Grayling: I am very much in favour of a broader supplier base and the arrival of new organisations to work with the Government. I think it important for us to work with third parties, as, indeed, the last Government did. I believe that when, in the near future, we publish the list of organisations that have passed the pre-qualification questionnaire stage in respect of the reforms of the probation service, every Member in the House will be encouraged by the mix of organisations that have put their names forward.

Jenny Chapman: I have never before raised an individual case with the Secretary of State, but every now and again something happens that I think is worthy of being raised in the House.
	The Secretary of State will be aware that last week, in court, it was reported that a woman had miscarried in her cell during her first night in a prison run by Sodexo, She informed health care workers, but was made to clean up on her own, and received no assistance for three days and no pain relief. Sodexo’s own inquiry into the matter is not sufficient. The Secretary of State should commit himself to some kind of inquiry, investigation or review to ensure that no other woman in a private or a public sector prison has to experience that level of neglect.

Chris Grayling: Let me make absolutely clear that if what has been described is true, it is wholly unacceptable. My team will of course follow it up with Sodexo, and Sodexo itself will want to address it, because no one would seek to defend it. Things go wrong in public prisons and in private prisons, and whenever they do go wrong and what happens is unacceptable, it should be addressed.

Legal Aid (Funding)

Jessica Morden: What assessment he has made of the effects of reductions in funding for civil legal aid.

Shailesh Vara: The Ministry of Justice and the Legal Aid Agency keep the legal aid scheme under constant review, in terms of both expenditure and the impact of reforms. The Government will undertake a post-implementation review of the legal aid provisions in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 within the next three to five years.

Jessica Morden: Since the Government’s legal aid cuts, more of my constituents have had to represent themselves in family courts against former partners who can afford a solicitor, and local cases are being deferred by judges because they do not feel that the litigant in person is sufficiently prepared. Does the Minister agree that it is time to be transparent and produce figures showing the number of litigants who
	have appeared in person and the number of deferred cases that have taken place since the changes, so that we can judge the impact on our courts for ourselves?

Shailesh Vara: The reforms did not come into effect until earlier this year, and we need to give them a bit more time. As I have said, we will be reviewing the position, but it is currently too early to form a proper assessment.

Family Mediation Services

Valerie Vaz: What recent assessment he has made of family mediation services.

Chris Grayling: The Ministry of Justice does not regulate family mediation services, but it does award contracts for the provision of family mediation funded through legal aid to standards set by the Legal Aid Agency. We are aware that there has been a drop in referrals to mediation following changes to legal aid in April 2013, although there has been no drop in the number of mediations taking place. My Department is undertaking a range of activities to address this important issue.

Valerie Vaz: The Minister indicates that there has been a drop of 47%, causing some mediation services to close. That was a foreseeable consequence of cuts in legal aid to family lawyers, so will he please change the policy now?

Chris Grayling: We are working extremely hard to address the issue. One change that will come through when the Children and Families Bill becomes law relates to making it a requirement in a family process that the mediation referral takes place. However, as I say, the actual issue is about referrals, rather than about the number of mediations, which has not changed. We are working very hard with those in the mediation world to address that and ensure that the right referrals are made.

Jonathan Djanogly: I would say the opposite to what the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) said: I am surprised that the number has fallen, because when the change to the regulations was made the Department gave full funding for all mediation to those in receipt of legal aid. Has the Minister thought, therefore, of encouraging more mediation by approaching lawyers and other venues to increase it?

Chris Grayling: We are following a number of different paths, including an increased promotion of mediation services and making some mediation compulsory as a result of the provisions in the Children and Families Bill. We are also looking for other measures to help ensure that mediation takes place. It is much better if these issues can be dealt with through a mediation service, rather than through the cost and difficulty of a full legal process.

Ian Lucas: But is the Secretary of State not aware that in the delicate environment of the beginning of a divorce case, specialist advice from legal
	practitioners leading to mediation is essential? That is why this Government’s policy has such a negative impact. Will he please look at it again?

Chris Grayling: I am not sure whether that is an attempted spending commitment from the hon. Gentleman. The reality is that we have had to take difficult decisions about the availability of legal aid in order to deal with the financial challenge we inherited. The issue is about trying to ensure that we make the best use of the network of mediators we have in this country. As I say, the number of actual mediations has not fallen, but we are not getting enough people into mediation in the first place. That is why we are changing the law, we are introducing better targeting of the routes into mediation and we are working with mediation organisations to help them get more people referred to them.

Anne McIntosh: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there seems to be a lack of clarity in this area? For example, it would not be appropriate to refer to family mediation a case in which a woman of low income, who could not pay for legal advice, wants to protect her child from going into custody. Such a case should still be legally aided, rather than being addressed through mediation.

Chris Grayling: Cases involving children being taken into care would, of course, remain funded through legal aid, and they continue to be carried out through the courts in the way they always have been—that remains important.

Probation Services

John Healey: What his policy is on probation trusts tendering for probation services.

Jeremy Wright: The “Transforming Rehabilitation” competition process has been designed to allow, as far as possible, a range of different entities to bid to deliver services. But such entities need to be capable of bearing financial risk, because under our reforms we will pay providers in full only if they are successful in reducing reoffending.

John Healey: The Justice Secretary is almost entirely without allies and without evidence for these privatisation plans. The Minister has confirmed that he is denying the experts in some truly excellent probation trusts, such as South Yorkshire’s, the chance to tender for these contracts. If South Yorkshire’s four local authorities combine to back the trust and take out the financial risks he talks about, will he think again?

Jeremy Wright: I would say two things to the right hon. Gentleman. First, he understands, I think, that one advantage of what we are proposing is that we move risk away from the taxpayer, so that those prepared to take on these contracts on a payment-by-results basis put their own money at risk, not the taxpayer’s. In the scenario he is outlining, it is difficult to see how we avoid the taxpayer continuing to take that risk. Secondly, as he may also know, many of the talented individuals who work for probation trusts at the moment are exploring
	the possibility of setting themselves up as mutuals so that they can continue to do this work, and there is considerable support for that from our colleagues at the Cabinet Office—they are providing money and support to enable them to do that.

Alan Beith: What makes the Minister confident that the structure he has described can overcome the dysfunctionality in offender management described by the chief inspectors of probation and prisons in a report today?

Jeremy Wright: My right hon. Friend refers to the report that has been produced today. As he knows, a significant point in it is that there is not currently sufficiently good connection between offender management that takes place inside custody and that that takes place outside. As he will also recognise, our transforming rehabilitation proposals intend to close that gap, so that offender management involves the same provider from the closing months of someone’s custodial sentence, through the gate and out into the community. Transforming rehabilitation will start to address exactly the points that this report raises.

Natascha Engel: Thirteen police and crime commissioners, including Alan Charles in Derbyshire, have expressed grave concerns at the plans for the probation service because they could put public safety at risk. What has the Minister said to them to address their fears?

Jeremy Wright: The first thing the House should know is that all 13 are Labour police and crime commissioners. Whatever party they come from, it is very important that we work with police and crime commissioners and that all providers who will be doing this work do so too. For that reason, we will ensure that police and crime plans from every area of the country will be clearly available to providers, and we will expect them to co-operate not just with police and crime commissioners but with a whole range of other local partners too.

Gareth Johnson: Does the Minister agree that the supervision of short-term prisoners by the probation service within existing budgets is simply unaffordable and that the tendering process is needed to provide extra supervision for short-term prisoners?

Jeremy Wright: I agree with my hon. Friend. He does not need to take my word for it as the previous Government tried to do that as part and parcel of the public sector budgets and failed to do so because they determined that it was unaffordable.

Elfyn Llwyd: A few days ago, the Minister and the Secretary of State appeared before the Justice Committee, during which the Secretary of State said that his door is always open to meet with the leaders of the National Association of Probation Officers. When will that meeting take place?

Jeremy Wright: I cannot give a date to the right hon. Gentleman. Both my right hon. Friend and I have met before with NAPO leaders and are happy to do so again. What we will not do is pause the process in which
	we are engaged because the members of those trade unions would like some certainty over their own futures, and we think that is important, which is why we must get on with this process.

Victims of Crime (Code of Practice)

Robert Flello: What steps he plans to take to enforce the Code of Practice for Victims of Crime.

Damian Green: We are working with all service providers who have duties under the victims code to ensure that their operational systems, guidance and training are updated to deliver their new responsibilities to victims of crime. We will continue to work with our criminal justice partners to ensure there is appropriate oversight of the new code at a local and national level.

Robert Flello: I am immensely grateful for that.
	“There is more to be done to ensure agencies are made accountable under the code…this needs to be backed up by statutory powers.”
	Those are not my words but the words of the Victims’ Commissioner herself. At every turn, the Government have paid lip service to victims and then acted against them. They have made the Victims’ Commissioner job part-time and then savaged the criminal injuries scheme. Will the Minister now give the victims code some real teeth, and not just warm words?

Damian Green: I am afraid the hon. Gentleman is massively out of touch with the sector that deals with victims if he expresses those views. When we launched the victims code, it was welcomed by a wide range of our partners in the voluntary sectors, including Victim Support and the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. The victims code is a significant step forward from the old impenetrable code that the previous Government put forward, and it has been welcomed by those who know most about the sector.

Simon Hughes: The one thing victims want most is to know that the perpetrators of the crime are brought to justice. Can the Minister assure us that we are doing enough to ensure that associates of the offender, or people who saw something, have the ability to report what they saw without fear of recrimination? If necessary, they can do it confidentially to start with.

Damian Green: That would be good police practice. One thing we are doing with the code is ensuring that the guidance that goes out to the police from the College of Policing will be improved to fit with the victims code. In other parts of the criminal justice system, both with the Crown Prosecution Service and the courts themselves, the code will make a difference in all instances and will enable victims to feel more confident.

Meg Hillier: The Secretary of State is planning to cut funding for Victim Support in London at a greater rate than anywhere else in the country. Will the Minister listen to his friend the Mayor of London and ensure that victims in London get the support they deserve?

Damian Green: I am happy to assure the hon. Lady and everyone else in London that the amount of money going to Victim Support in London is going up, not down, as it is in every other region of the country. More money will go to victims’ services under this Government than under the previous arrangements.

Sadiq Khan: The right hon. Gentleman is usually a thoughtful and intelligent Minister and he will be aware that we already have a variety of codes of practice and charters for victims scattered across different Government agencies. Like him, I meet victims of crime all the time and they complain that the codes are toothless and offer no means of redress if their entitlements are breached. How will the new code differ and how will he measure success?

Damian Green: It will differ in a number of ways. First, the new code is written so that victims will be able to understand it—I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that the previous code was not written in that way, as it was written by and for professionals. Secondly, there are specific rights in the code that were not in the previous code, such as the very important right for a victim to be able to make their personal statement in court after the sentence. Many victims have said that that is a significant step forward in enabling them to feel that they are being taken more seriously than they have been before.

Dangerous Driving (Sentencing)

Annette Brooke: What plans he has to review sentencing for causing death by dangerous driving.

Chris Grayling: Causing death by dangerous driving is punishable by up to 14 years’ imprisonment. I have asked the Sentencing Council to look at its guidelines on causing death by driving to ensure that the sentences imposed reflect the seriousness of the offending. We are also considering whether further changes might be necessary to strengthen the law.

Annette Brooke: I thank the Secretary of State for his answer. Constituents who have lost a close relative in a driving incident, perhaps a young son or daughter, face the stress of a court case along with a feeling that the sentences for serious driving offences are inadequate. Does he agree that the outcome of the review and the various issues he is considering must make a difference to irresponsible driving and the subsequent loss of lives?

Chris Grayling: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. I feel strongly that we must take a tough approach to someone’s causing death and serious injury while disqualified from driving. Too often, it turns out that the people who commit such an offence have been disqualified again and again and do not have a licence when it happens. That is an area that I am keen to address.

Stephen McCabe: The Secretary of State’s colleague at the Home Office, the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), announced
	in Cambridge on 28 August that he had asked the Sentencing Council to review this very offence. Is this another request today? When exactly will the Sentencing Council review the offence and make a decision?

Chris Grayling: I put in the original request to the Sentencing Council some months ago. It intends to put this into its work stream for next year and will make recommendations. Separately, I am also looking at the current law. I feel that there is still scope for tightening and I will bring forward my thoughts in due course.

Philip Hollobone: My constituents Mark and Sue Donnelly lost their 26-year-old son Stephen in a road incident on the A14 to a driver who was twice over the limit. He was sentenced to eight years in prison, which they do not think is long enough, and nor do I, but he was also given a 10-year concurrent driving ban, which they felt was particularly insulting since for most of that time he would be in prison and unable to drive. Will the Secretary of State consider concurrent driving bans to see whether they are appropriate?

Chris Grayling: I am rather sympathetic to what my hon. Friend says and I suggest that he and I have a longer conversation about it.

Victims of Crime

David Hanson: What his strategy is for supporting victims of crime.

David Burrowes: What recent steps he has taken to support victims of crime.

Damian Green: This Government are committed to putting victims first and we will give victims a voice at every stage of the criminal justice system. It is crucial that victims receive the support and help they need to cope and, where possible, to recover. We are aiming to make up to £100 million available to support victims to recover, testing pre-trial cross-examination, considering how we might reduce the distress caused to victims by cross-examination in court and implementing the new victims code.

David Hanson: Most people I speak to think that the Victims’ Commissioner should be a full-time post. Why is it not?

Damian Green: The Victims’ Commissioner is doing admirable work. She is supporting the Government and she is capable of doing the work very well. I am already enjoying working with her to ensure that she continues to represent the interests of victims very well.

David Burrowes: Can the Minister give me an update on the progress in providing funds for victims from prisoner earnings, which not only fulfilled an important manifesto commitment, but upheld the principle that criminals should pay victims for their crimes, not least when as prisoners they are earning?

Damian Green: My hon. Friend raises an important point. Part of the extra money that is going to support victims in London and elsewhere comes from the proceeds of the Prisoners’ Earnings Act 1996. I am happy to tell him that whereas in 2011-12 some £332,000 went to
	Victim Support from this source, in 2013-14 the sum will be £825,000—more than two and a half times as much.

Dan Jarvis: Victims of domestic abuse are placed at risk when forced to give their safe address in open court in unrelated proceedings. That not only places the individual at risk from the abuser, but deters the thousands of victims who suffer from domestic violence from reporting this horrendous crime. Does the Minister support Eve’s law, which seeks to address that anomaly, and will he work with the campaign to ensure its implementation in law?

Damian Green: I will happily consider that. The hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point. It is for the judge to decide in each individual case, and it is not for Ministers at the Dispatch Box to decide what judges do in each individual case. We are already taking a range of steps to protect people who may be victims of domestic violence, and I am always happy to look at others.

Andrew George: On a similar point, the families of victims of capital crimes, as well as coping with bereavement, will usually be unaware of their rights and the responsibilities of authorities to assist them in protecting the memory, reputation, estate and so on of the deceased. What assessment has my right hon. Friend made of the support available to victims’ families in such circumstances?

Damian Green: I think I know the case to which my hon. Friend is referring, as he and I have discussed it in Westminster Hall. He will be aware that I wrote to him on 4 December on the detailed issue. Victims of all kinds require support and are getting better support. As he knows, the specific issues related to cases such as he describes are being considered at present.

Justice System (Savings)

David Mowat: What assessment he has made of the potential for further savings to the public purse from the justice system.

Chris Grayling: Across the spending review period starting in 2010 and running up to March 2015 the Ministry of Justice will have delivered annual savings of well over £2.5 billion. Building on successful delivery of these savings, the Ministry is developing reform plans to transform the way we deal with offenders and make courts, prisons and probation more efficient.

David Mowat: A unique feature of the legal aid system in the UK is that we pay a subset of practitioners several multiples of what we pay our Prime Minister. Can the Secretary of State give us some assurance that his changes and amendments to the legal aid system will bear down on those very high salaries, while protecting the majority of barristers who do such good work?

Chris Grayling: We have tried very hard in difficult decisions to make sure that we focus as much as possible of the impact of necessary changes to legal aid on the higher end of the income scale. Our changes to very
	high cost case fees and the approach that we are taking to Crown court fees are designed to ensure that, so far as possible, the impact of our changes is much less on those people at the bottom end of the income scale than it is at the top.

Human Trafficking

Frank Field: How many young people currently in young offenders institutions and specialist children’s homes are being held on human trafficking offences.

Damian Green: From 2008 to 2012, no children and young people were sentenced to custody for human trafficking as the principal offence. This Government are committed to combating human trafficking. On Monday we published the draft Modern Slavery Bill to strengthen our response and to underpin the work of law enforcement agencies.

Frank Field: As the Lord Chief Justice has ruled that victims of slavery should not be prosecuted for crimes they undertake under the direction of their slave owners, will the Minister undertake an audit of young people in offender institutions to establish how many are there, even if they have been charged under a lesser crime, in order to see whether their cases should be reviewed?

Damian Green: Yes, as part of the extra work we are doing under the aegis of the draft Modern Slavery Bill, to which the right hon. Gentleman has contributed significantly, we are obviously looking at the individual effects on those who might have been victims of trafficking and enslavement. He makes a perfectly valid point.

Restorative Justice (Funding)

Fiona Bruce: How his Department’s funding for restorative justice is being disbursed.

Jeremy Wright: We recently announced funding of £29 million over three years for restorative justice, at least £22 million of which is going to police and crime commissioners for victim-initiated and pre-sentence restorative justice services. The remainder is being used to boost capacity so that good-quality restorative justice is available at all stages in the criminal justice system.

Fiona Bruce: I thank the Minister for that reply. Will he join me in affirming the excellent work of the Prison Fellowship’s restorative justice programme, known as the Sycamore Tree project, and will he be good enough to meet me and Prison Fellowship representatives to discuss how the project can be extended beyond the third of prisons in which it currently works to prisons across the country?

Jeremy Wright: As my hon. Friend says, the Sycamore Tree project is already available in some 75 prisons. I certainly support what my hon. Friend says about the good work it does, as was showcased at the excellent event she hosted last week, which I had the pleasure of attending. I will certainly meet her to discuss it further.

Offender Supervision

Henry Smith: What professional development support his Department plans to put in place for those supervising offenders in the community.

Jeremy Wright: The national probation service will continue to use the probation qualifications framework to ensure the competence of its staff. For the new community rehabilitation companies there will be a contractual requirement to have and to maintain a work force who have appropriate levels of training and competence. On 3 December we announced that we will be setting up a new probation institute that will promote the sharing of good practice to those working across the probation profession.

Henry Smith: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. How much investment are the Government making in the new national probation institute?

Jeremy Wright: We are contributing some £90,000 towards the cost of setting up the probation institute. The remainder will come from the Probation Association and the Probation Chiefs Association. I am grateful to them and to the probation trade unions for working together so successfully to bring forward the proposal, which we entirely support and which will help to underline the professionalism and continuing professional development of those who work in rehabilitation.

Access to Justice

Gerry Sutcliffe: What steps he plans to take to ensure access to justice regardless of ability to pay.

Paul Blomfield: What steps he plans to take to ensure access to justice regardless of ability to pay.

Chris Grayling: The fee remissions scheme was updated on 7 October this year. It provides for court and tribunal fees to be waived in whole or in part based on an assessment of the user’s disposable capital and gross monthly income. The scheme ensures that access to justice is protected for those who cannot afford to pay court or tribunal fees. Legal aid also remains available in many cases, and those granted legal aid will have their court fees paid.

Gerry Sutcliffe: I am interested in that answer. Why is it, then, that the legal profession in Bradford is telling me that, as a result of the Government’s introduction of charges for industrial tribunals—£1,500 before taking a case—and reduced support for legal advice workers, people will be denied reasonable access to justice?

Chris Grayling: The system is very clear. When someone needs to go to court but does not have the income to pay any court fees incurred, there is a system of fee remissions that ensures that they do not have to contribute.

Paul Blomfield: The Secretary of State’s justification for the legal aid residence test is contribution, particularly through tax. Can he therefore explain his decision to exempt only certain categories of children from the test? If he fails to broaden the exemption, is he not in danger of falling into the trap that the Joint Committee on Human Rights described last week as
	“knowing the price of everything but the value of nothing”?

Chris Grayling: I might be a bit old-fashioned, but I do not think that we should give civil legal aid to people who have just arrived in the country. However, I recognise some of the issues raised in the consultation and I have listened. The change with regard to very young children under 12 months old was specifically requested by people in the judiciary. I listened and I introduced it.

Andy Slaughter: One group particularly badly hit by the Government’s restrictions on access to justice are mesothelioma sufferers. The Secretary of State has not carried out the review that he promised in order to get the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 through. He continues to confuse funding for mesothelioma with the Mesothelioma Bill, even though there is no connection. He has not even answered the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) asked at the previous justice questions, which he promised to do. Why is he making people who suffer from that terrible disease pay 25% of their compensation in lawyers’ fees and then telling them to shop around? When will he give justice to mesothelioma sufferers?

Chris Grayling: Of course this is not a new problem, and in many areas we are picking up on things that were not done by the previous Government. We will bring forward a further consultation on these issues shortly.

Domestic Violence (Victims)

Graeme Morrice: What steps he is taking to support victims of domestic violence.

Damian Green: Domestic violence is a dreadful form of abuse and is not acceptable within our society. The Government are committed to providing greater protection to victims of all forms of violence, and their approach to domestic violence and abuse is set out in the violence against women and girls action plan, updated in 2013.

Graeme Morrice: Last week’s report by the Joint Committee on Human Rights on the Government’s legal aid cuts said:
	“We are particularly worried about the impact of the residence test on vulnerable groups such as children or victims of domestic violence.”
	Will the Minister tell the House exactly how much will be saved by taking away legal aid from sufferers of domestic violence affected by the residence test, and explain what victims are expected to do if these plans strip them of the option of legal aid?

Damian Green: The Government have left in place all the exemptions in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 to ensure that the
	most vulnerable continue to receive legal aid. Beyond that, we have ring-fenced nearly £40 million for specialist local domestic and sexual violence support services. That, together with specialist domestic violence courts, provides a better specialist way of dealing with this terrible abuse.

Claims Management Companies

Andrew Jones: What steps he is taking to tackle rogue payment protection insurance claim companies and nuisance calling by those companies.

Shailesh Vara: Our priority is to protect the public by rooting out and punishing bad practices by claims companies. The claims management regulator is expanding its resources and consulting on a new set of toughened rules to crackdown on abuses, and later next year claims companies will face fines for rule breaches.

Andrew Jones: I thank the Minister for that reply. Given that so many rogue companies have been plaguing constituents, what effect have the Government’s actions had on the number of claims firms?

Shailesh Vara: I am happy to say that there has been a positive impact on the numbers. Between January and November 2013, the total number of authorised claims management companies decreased by 718; the total number of personal injury claims management companies fell by 917; and the total number of PPI claims management companies fell by 85. That is clear evidence that the Government’s tough measures are having an impact.

Jason McCartney: I serve on the Transport Committee, and we have just completed an inquiry into the effect of fraudulent whiplash claims on the cost of motor insurance. Will the Minister update the House on what steps the Government are taking to stop bogus claims by rogue firms driving up the cost of insurance premiums for drivers?

Shailesh Vara: The Government have introduced various measures, one of which, on whiplash, is to have an accredited panel of medical experts. We want to make sure that there are proper experts who deal with this issue. The AA has reported that, as of October this year, the average comprehensive insurance for motor vehicles has gone down by £80.

Cautions (Repeat Offences)

Tony Baldry: What steps he is taking to reduce the use of cautions for repeat offences.

Damian Green: Cautioning for repeat offenders is unacceptable and does not deliver justice for victims. That is why we have acted to ensure that criminals should no longer receive a second caution for the same, or a similar, offence committed in a two-year period.

Tony Baldry: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. In addition to stopping the use of repeat cautions, does he agree that there are some offences for which, in any event, the use of a caution is simply not appropriate?

Damian Green: I do agree; my right hon. Friend makes an extremely important and valid point. That is why we concluded after the simple cautions review that cautions should not be used for any offence that can be tried only in the Crown court. Indeed, going further than that, certain offences that can be tried either in the Crown court or in a magistrates court are also not suitable for cautions, including, in particular, possession of a knife.

Prisons (Literacy)

Andrew Selous: What steps he is taking to ensure that no prisoner leaves prison unable to read.

Jeremy Wright: When a literacy need is identified on arrival in prison, prisoners are offered teaching and support as a matter of priority. In 2014 we are introducing increased assessment for prisoners, including reading skills, to ensure that we maximise the benefits of the literacy support that is available.

Andrew Selous: The Secretary of State has spoken of his vision of custody as “education with detention”. If serious efforts are made in prison to deal with illiteracy, will probation officers absolutely ensure that that continues on release?

Jeremy Wright: I think my hon. Friend refers to a quote that is specifically about the youth estate, but he is absolutely right that education is just as important in the adult estate. Too many prisoners cannot read and write properly, which means that their chances of securing employment on release are much reduced. Under our reforms of rehabilitation, we will expect providers to ensure that someone is supported not only through the gate, but in the community for at least 12 months. One of the best ways of supporting them to stay free of crime is to make sure that they get employment, so I would absolutely expect them to be interested in literacy as well as many other things.

Mr Speaker: The right hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Sir Andrew Stunell) was already looking excited, but I imagine his excitement will now be boundless.

Voluntary Sector (Rehabilitation Contracts)

Andrew Stunell: What steps he plans to take to ensure that the voluntary sector is able to compete for rehabilitation contracts.

Jeremy Wright: I am not sure I can live up to the expectations, Mr Speaker.
	We have run a registration process for smaller providers to maximise the opportunities for them to be involved in the competition, and we awarded £150,000 to the
	Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations to help the voluntary sector and mutuals to compete for contracts. We will embed good market stewardship principles in the system so that there is fair, reasonable and transparent treatment of all those involved in the direct and indirect provision of services.

Andrew Stunell: I thank the Minister for that reply, but does he agree that in many previous exercises by other Government Departments, inappropriate scale of projects and burdensome bureaucratic detail have meant that small, voluntary local organisations have been ruled out? Will he undertake to ensure that high-quality, small-scale providers will be able to access these contracts?

Jeremy Wright: I understand the point my right hon. Friend makes: it is very important that we reduce bureaucracy wherever we can. I know he has experience of this from his time in government. It is also important that we support those small, voluntary organisations when they show an interest and then support them through the contract-bidding process and contract management. My right hon. Friend will be reassured to learn that there is already considerable interest in the voluntary sector: some 550 voluntary organisations have already expressed their interest in participating.

Stafford Prison

Jeremy Lefroy: What plans he has for Stafford prison.

Chris Grayling: My hon. Friend and I had the honour and pleasure of visiting Stafford prison last week. I pay tribute to the skills of the team working there. It has a strong and valuable future in our prison system.

Jeremy Lefroy: I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for visiting last week. He will have seen the emphasis that Governor Oakes-Richards places on prisoners being in work, education and other purposeful activity. Will my right hon. Friend indicate what support the Ministry of Justice is giving to Stafford and other prisons to help them prepare prisoners for the world of work?

Chris Grayling: If you were to visit Stafford prison, Mr Speaker, you could not help being impressed by the work being done by the team on the ground, bringing valuable contracts and work experience into the prison. Of course, our central team that looks for opportunities to bring work into prisons will work with Stafford and other prisons to ensure that we do as much as we can to keep prisoners active.

Mr Speaker: I must tell the Secretary of State that I have visited the prison myself, but sadly it was 13 years ago. I am sure it is even better now than it was then. [Interruption.] No, I did so in my capacity as a shadow Minister. [Laughter.]

Damian Green: The whole House is relieved to hear that, Mr Speaker!

Cracked Trials

John Pugh: What assessment he has made of trends in the number of cracked trials.

Damian Green: The number and proportion of trials which crack and the reasons for this is reported by the Ministry of Justice in quarterly court statistics. As part of the Government’s criminal justice strategy and action plan, Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service is working with the Crown Prosecution Service and the judiciary to improve performance in the summary justice system, including reducing the volume of cracked trials.

John Pugh: Has the number of cracked trials been in any way influenced by the reduction in the number of courts and court access?

Damian Green: No. The cracked trial rate in magistrates courts has remained fairly stable—between 43% and 45%—since 2006. I am happy to report that the rate in the Crown court has been falling steadily—from 43% in the third quarter of 2010 to 36% in the second quarter of 2013—so progress is being made.

Topical Questions

Tom Blenkinsop: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Chris Grayling: Given the interest in victims’ matters today, I will briefly update the House on the new victims code, which came into effect last week. It is the culmination of a year’s work to make sure that victims are given back their voice, and it has been widely welcomed by victims’ groups. Crucially, it includes a new entitlement for victims to read out their personal statement in court, which means that offenders and the court will be left in no doubt about the full impact of the crime. Children and young people will get the enhanced levels of support that they deserve all the way through the criminal justice process. The new impact statement for business will make sure that when hard-working people and their businesses suffer from the effects of crime, the court can hear directly about its impact on their livelihood and on jobs. I want to make sure that all victims’ voices are heard, and under this Government are working to ensure that they are.

Tom Blenkinsop: Since May 2010, 47 courts closed by this Government have remained unsold. The cost to maintain those buildings is £2.2 million. Is that a good use of taxpayers’ money?

Chris Grayling: Clearly, we want to sell an unused property as soon as we can, and we are working to do so, but we of course need to have a buyer before we can sell it, and we are constantly looking for buyers.

Priti Patel: Will the Secretary of State provide the House with an update on when he intends to stop child sex offenders and terrorists being automatically released from prison early?

Chris Grayling: This is an extremely important area. A change is long overdue, and we will proceed with it in the next few weeks.

Sadiq Khan: You will be aware, Mr Speaker, that the Justice Secretary is unwilling to publish the MOJ’s assessment of the risks attached to his plans to privatise probation. Will the Secretary of State tell the House whether his plans will see the risk to public safety higher, lower or the same as it is now?

Chris Grayling: I owe the right hon. Gentleman an apology from last time, when I implied that his campaign to be Mayor of London had him trailing in third place. I have now discovered that that is not the case, and I wish him well. I have watched his progress carefully.
	On the risk registers, I would say to him that he never published them because they are a working tool for the civil service. This Government will not do anything that leads to a greater risk to public safety. Bringing supervision to under-12-month groups will make the public safer, rather than more at risk, through a system that he and his Government admitted was wrong but never did anything about.

Sadiq Khan: The Secretary of State’s response is even more surprising, bearing in mind the very damning joint report from the chief inspectors of prisons and of probation, which is published today. They believe that the scale of the problems they have identified means that
	“the entire thrust of the Government’s rehabilitation plans”
	is undermined. We know that he ignored their last report in 2012, but bearing in mind the seriousness of the issue, will he meet the inspectors as a matter of urgency to hear their concerns that his plans could in fact make matters worse rather than better?

Chris Grayling: I hate to disappoint the right hon. Gentleman, but I last met the probation inspector about three days ago. I meet both inspectors regularly, and I take their views immensely seriously. That is one reason why we have put in place radical changes that will create a through the gate rehabilitation service to deal with many of the issues that they have highlighted. Unfortunately for the right hon. Gentleman, their report is not about our plans, but about the system we are trying to change, and that is why we are trying to change it.

David Burrowes: The Secretary of State will be aware that, following a spate of knife attacks in Enfield, my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) and I led a successful campaign to toughen up the knife laws. After the killing in my constituency of Joshua Folkes just two weeks from a knife attack, will the Secretary of State ensure that the law shows greater intolerance of those carrying a knife?

Damian Green: The whole House will share my hon. Friend’s horror at the death of his constituent in a knife crime, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his dedication to tackling that particular social scourge. He will know that the Government have recently created a mandatory prison sentence for threatening someone
	with a knife, and as I have just said to my right hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry), we are ending the use of cautioning for possession of a knife. Knife crime is falling, but we will of course consider any further changes that will continue that welcome fall.

Kerry McCarthy: Bristol city council and Barnardo’s have just launched a charter for the children of prisoners, which is intended to prevent young people in such a situation from enduring their own hidden sentence and to reduce the impact of a parent’s imprisonment on their educational attainment, emotional development and behaviour. What support is the Justice Secretary giving to such initiatives, and will he review how his Department can help the 1,300 children in Bristol and the close to 200,000 children in England and Wales in such a situation?

Jeremy Wright: What the hon. Lady says is very interesting and we will look at the details. She is of course right that it has a huge impact on young people when one of their parents serves time in custody. There is a knock-on effect on the likelihood of those young people going on to commit crimes themselves. Shockingly, something like 60% of young men who have had a parent in custody go on to commit crimes themselves. She is right to make that link and we will look at what she has said.

Andrew George: The forfeiture rule precludes a person who has been convicted of unlawfully killing another person from acquiring benefit in consequence of the killing. However, if the deceased person is a close family friend, a spouse or a close family member, their killer can use and abuse the estate until they are convicted. Will the Government consider addressing that issue? Will the Minister meet me to explore whether the rule can be improved in that respect?

Shailesh Vara: My hon. Friend raises an interesting point. I would be more than happy to meet him to discuss the matter further.

Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Secretary of State confirm that neither G4S nor Serco will be considered for any further contracts with the Ministry of Justice while the fraud inquiries are continuing?

Chris Grayling: Mr Speaker, you will understand that, for legal reasons, I cannot discuss the outcome of a tendering process before the appropriate time. I will make the appropriate statements when the right moment arises.

Edward Leigh: Further to the Secretary of State’s earlier reply, will he confirm that this country is a proud signatory of the original European convention on human rights and a founder member of the Council of Europe? Indeed, for its first five decades, the convention was hardly a controversial issue. The problem is that the Human Rights Act 1998 has been used by the European Court
	of Human Rights in a proactive way to deal not with gross abuses of human rights like those that we saw in fascist Europe, but with the decisions of a democratically elected Parliament. Why do we not simply remain a member of the Council of Europe, keep the convention, repeal the 1998 Act and create our own Bill of Rights?

Chris Grayling: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. A leading official from the Court came to this House a few weeks ago and described this country as “best in class”. If a country that is best in class on human rights has reached a point where it has lost confidence in the Court, it is clear that something needs to be done. Under a Conservative Government, something will be done.

Natascha Engel: As well as the 13 wise Labour police and crime commissioners who have raised concerns about the Justice Secretary’s plans for probation, probation staff themselves have raised concerns and the internal risk assessment raises serious concerns about the dangerous and reckless plans. Given that, why is he signing contracts with private companies for up to 10 years, which will bind future Parliaments to pursue this privatisation whether it is successful or goes very badly wrong?

Chris Grayling: Let me remind the House what the Labour party opposes. It opposes extending supervision to under 12-month prisoners. It opposes a through the gate service. It opposes a system that will provide mentoring and support to people for 12 months after they leave prison. That is what the Opposition keep criticising. They could not do it because they could not find a way. We have found a way and we are going to do it.

David Ward: I listened with interest to the question that the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney) asked about PPI claims. It is excellent news that the Competition Commission is taking action to address market failure in the car insurance industry. The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the Department for Transport and the Home Office are all making a contribution. Is there anything more that the Ministry of Justice can do?

Shailesh Vara: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. Given that the Competition Commission is undertaking that inquiry, it is probably best to listen to what it has to say, take note and see whether we can improve on its suggestions.

Andrew McDonald: Given that new entrants will potentially be coming into an immature private probation market, will the Secretary of State guarantee that low and medium- risk prisoners will be managed correctly when their risk level increases so that public safety is not compromised?

Chris Grayling: A crucial part of the reform plan and the contracts that we are putting together will be to require an element of co-location between the members of the national probation service who carry out risk
	assessments and the teams in the new providers to ensure that there is a simple process that happens in the same office so that risky offenders can be transferred to multi-agency supervision as quickly as necessary when the circumstance arises.

Philip Davies: According to Ministry of Justice figures, for every single category of offence, men are more likely than women to be sent to prison. Does the Secretary of State accept his own Department’s figures, or does he think they are wrong?

Jeremy Wright: I always try to accept my own Department’s figures, but I think my hon. Friend will accept that it is always in the minds of sentencers to try to avoid sentencing female offenders, in particular, to custody. As he will agree, however, that is sometimes unavoidable, which is why we need to provide the necessary places in the female custodial estate.

Debbie Abrahams: A few weeks ago I attended a public forum on domestic violence, where I was told that specialist domestic violence courts were being closed and that support for domestic violence victims to bring their case to court was being restricted. Why do the Government find it acceptable to deny the most vulnerable access to justice?

Damian Green: This Government have done more than any previous Government to give victims of domestic violence access to justice, and we are continuing to improve how such people, normally women, are treated in the operations of both the courts system and the police. As I said earlier, we have backed up that commitment with £40 million of ring-fenced money.

Jackie Doyle-Price: Theft and vandalism against small businesses costs jobs. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that his changes to the victims code will mean that courts can take into account the economic consequence of crime from now on?

Chris Grayling: I can confirm exactly that, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and her constituents. Her work in this area is clear evidence that a Back Bencher bringing a genuine constituency case to the Government can make a real difference. She did that, she has made a difference and the world has now changed for such businesses, so the impact will be known.

Paul Goggins: The Secretary of State indicated earlier that he was planning a consultation on mesothelioma victims. Does he accept that the review that his Department recently carried out simply did not fulfil the requirements of section 48 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012?

Shailesh Vara: We had a consultation, and we have come up with the preliminary report. As was said earlier, we will come up with a fuller report in due course.

Stephen Metcalfe: Will the Minister confirm that if an alternative location can be found for the Felmores approved premises in Basildon, his Department is still willing to relocate it?

Jeremy Wright: We will certainly look at that. May I say that it has been particularly helpful to receive submissions on the matter from my hon. Friend, who has been closely engaged in arguing on behalf of his constituents? Of course, if a suitable alternative venue can be found, we will co-operate with that.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Will the Secretary of State confirm that last Friday the prison capacity was running at 99.2%? Will he further confirm that over Christmas and into the new year, no police cells or custodial cells in courts will be used to supply the overfill?

Chris Grayling: The Opposition are desperate to find a crisis in our prisons. I can absolutely confirm that we are nowhere near the situation that they were in when they were in office, when they had to use police cells. We have plenty of capacity in our prison system and plenty of reserves that we can draw upon, and last week the prison population came down.

Matthew Offord: Does the Secretary of State share my concern about the case of Beth Schlesinger and the unusual decision by an Austrian court to deprive her of custody of her two young children? Will he undertake to make representations to the Austrian Government on what many people consider a serious miscarriage of justice?

Chris Grayling: I am happy to discuss the case with my hon. Friend. I suspect that he, as constituency MP, may be better placed to make representations, but I am happy to discuss it with him.

Robert Flello: May I take the Secretary of State’s mind back to the war memorial at the former Fenton magistrates court? There seems to be a bit of confusion among some of my constituents who are fighting for it about the difference between a covenant and a clause in a sale contract. Will he put on record whether there will be a permanent covenant or a temporary contract clause?

Shailesh Vara: I have corresponded with the hon. Gentleman on the subject, and I can assure him that there will be a covenant to ensure that the monument is preserved, and not temporarily.

Philip Hollobone: How many foreign national offenders are there in our prisons, and what steps are being taken to send them back to secure detention in their own countries?

Jeremy Wright: Well, this question is familiar to me. The answer is 10,789—I think that figure is heading in the right direction although there is a lot more to do. My hon. Friend is right to say that the Government’s clear intention is to return all the foreign national offenders we can back to custody in their own countries. That requires compulsory prisoner transfer agreements of the kind that we are negotiating and that Labour failed to negotiate.

Julian Huppert: rose—

Mr Speaker: I would not want the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) to feel either forgotten or ignored. We must hear the hon. Gentleman, with brevity.

Julian Huppert: For many years there has been an increase in private companies doing public sector work. Does the Secretary of State agree that that must be done in a transparent and accountable way, and will he extend the Freedom of Information Act to cover it?

Chris Grayling: I am very much of the view that the Freedom of Information Act should be extended to cover some of those provisions, and I am also in favour of an open-book arrangement with our contractors. I hope that when the hon. Gentleman looks at the list of organisations that have put their name forward for probation, which will be published shortly, he will see some powerful partnerships between the private and voluntary sector of the kind we all hope to see.

Transport Infrastructure

Patrick McLoughlin: With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the work of the Airports Commission. I will also give brief details of my written ministerial statement from this morning on Network Rail’s reclassification.
	In September last year, Sir Howard Davies agreed to chair an independent Airports Commission. That commission was asked to examine how the UK’s status as a leading global aviation hub can be maintained, and this morning it published its interim report. I have deposited copies of that report in the Library, and it is available on the Airports Commission’s website. I know this issue is central not only to our nation’s economic future but to those who use or work in airports, or who are affected by the impact of airports on their lives.
	The UK is a leader in aviation, with the third largest aviation network in the world. The sector contributes £18 billion per year to our economy, and employs around 220,000 workers directly and many more indirectly. We need airports that put our country at the front of global competition and allow people to get to where they want to go. We also want airports that are quieter and meet our carbon commitments. Today’s report is an important step towards both goals.
	Many Members of the House and their constituents hold strong views about the right outcome, and it is right that we respect that. I will be writing to invite Members to a briefing session early in the new year, when Sir Howard will explain the contents of the commission’s report in more detail. I take this opportunity to thank Sir Howard and his fellow commissioners—Sir John Armitt, Professor Ricky Burdett, Vivienne Cox, Dame Julia King, and Geoff Muirhead, who stood down in September—for the care they have taken. Their interim report is a detailed and professional piece of work based on careful research, and it merits the fullest consideration.
	It may be helpful if I provide a brief overview of the key issues that have been addressed. First, the interim report provides the commission’s advice on the level of future airport capacity this country will require, which is based on new evidence about a rapidly changing industry. The commission has also consulted a wide range of people and organisations, and as a result it offers a clear recommendation that there is need for new runway capacity in the medium term to support continued competitiveness and prosperity. We will, of course, be looking carefully at that recommendation and at how best we can take decisions that are in the long-term economic interest of the country, while respecting the environment and quality of life. Sir Howard is also clear in his report that there is no crisis of capacity now. He does, however, conclude that we will need one additional runway in the south-east by 2030, and in all likelihood a second by 2050. The commission is clear that those recommendations can be consistent with the UK’s climate change obligations.
	Secondly, the commission has announced which long-term options it intends to take forward in the second phase of its work. The first option is Gatwick Airport. The commission will consider a new runway spaced
	sufficiently south of the existing runway to permit fully independent operation. The second and third options are for Heathrow Airport. The Commission will consider, first, a new full-length runway to the north west of the existing airport, as proposed by Heathrow Airport Ltd, spaced sufficiently to permit fully independent operation; and secondly, an extension of the existing northern runway to the west, as proposed by Heathrow Hub Ltd, which would allow it to be operated as two separate runways, one for departures and one for arrivals.
	Options for the construction of a new airport in the Thames estuary have not been shortlisted by the commission at this stage. However, the commission intends to carry out further analysis of the feasibility and impacts of a new airport on the Isle of Grain and aims to reach a decision in the second half of 2014 on whether this constitutes a credible option for further development and detailed study. If this option is then added to the shortlist, it will be subject to a process of appraisal and consultation similar to that proposed for other shortlisted options. In phase two of its work, the commission will undertake detailed analysis and consultation on each of these locations, in partnership with promoters. It will also, of course, work with local communities and listen to their views.
	On the third key issue, the commission also recommends action to make better use of our existing aviation infrastructure, particularly over the next five years. I welcome this fresh thinking, much of which is aimed at industry as much as the Government, about how we can make improvements to our already strong aviation sector. The commission has produced some interesting ideas including: the better use of airspace to improve resilience at London airports; trials at Heathrow airport to smooth the early-morning arrival schedule to minimise stacking and delays and to provide more predictable respite for local communities; and an independent aviation noise authority to improve decision making on noise issues. These are important recommendations that merit a response in advance of decisions on longer-term capacity. The Government will consider the short-term recommendations in detail and respond to them by the spring of next year. Finally, the commission proposes improvements to surface access to airports. The Government set out their initial response to these recommendations in their national infrastructure plan, published earlier this month.
	I would also like to set out how we intend to address the concerns of people who live around sites subject to further consideration by the commission. Now that the commission’s report has been published, we will be working closely with promoters to consider the form and scale of any appropriate relief that might be put in place, and we will set out our thinking on this important issue in our response to the interim report.
	I know that colleagues on both sides of the House will have their views on the content of the commission’s interim report, and in particular on the choices made in shortlisting those options. My principal concern as Secretary of State for Transport is to protect the integrity and independence of the commission process through to the final report, which we expect to be delivered by summer 2015. The Government will not therefore be commenting, either today or in responding to the interim report, on the respective merits of the options that have and have not been shortlisted. Given the vital importance
	of aviation to our nation, I urge colleagues to engage positively with the work of the commission as it moves into the next, equally important phase of its work. The variety of views in the House and beyond about the right way forward is proof that an independent commission, rather than ill thought out actions that might suggest other alternatives, is the right way forward. The commission process offers us the best chance we have to get this decision right.
	I turn briefly to a second issue. Hon. Members will also be aware that today the Office for National Statistics announced that from 1 September 2014 Network Rail will be reclassified and appear on the Government’s balance sheet. As the Treasury and the Office for Budget Responsibility noted when my right hon. Friend the Chancellor made his autumn statement, this includes the company’s net debt of some £30 billion. I laid a written ministerial statement this morning, and I published a memorandum of understanding with Network Rail on my Department’s website and placed copies in the Libraries of both Houses. The MOU shows how my Department will work with Network Rail until its reclassification in September 2014. This independent, statistical decision will not affect Network Rail’s investment programmes, plans for High Speed 2 or the franchising programme. The Government will continue to deliver vital improvements to all modes of transport so that transport can remain the engine for economic growth that it is. I commend this statement to the House.

Mary Creagh: I thank the Secretary of State for giving me notice and advance sight of his statement. I welcome the interim report from Sir Howard Davies. This is important work, and we will scrutinise it closely. It is vital that we take decisions about our airport capacity, including in the south-east, as it is important for Britain’s jobs, growth and competitiveness. Britain’s status as a global centre of aviation should be maintained.
	It is good to see that the original Heathrow proposal for a third runway to the north of the current airport, which we were sceptical about, has been taken off the table. We also welcome the fact that this work takes into account our climate change obligations. As the commission now looks at specific proposals in more detail, we urge it to take into account the need to minimise the impact of increased capacity on local people and the environment. We are glad that the Government accepted our proposal to establish the commission, and we will look carefully at the report. The commission must be allowed to get on and complete its work on the long-term future of UK aviation.
	Will the Secretary of State explain the exact status of the plans for an airport in the Thames estuary? I also want to ask him about the commission’s short-term recommendations. Will he introduce legislation in the Queen’s Speech in May to set up an independent aviation noise authority? If so, which Bill will contain the proposals? Can he say more about the optimisation strategy to improve the efficiency of UK airports in the short term? Communities that are currently affected by aviation noise want to know the Secretary of State’s position on additional night flights and on compensation for
	communities. Will he draw up plans to ensure that EU limits on air pollutants from existing aviation are met, as recommended by the Transport Select Committee?
	On the reclassification of Network Rail, given that the Government already guarantee Network Rail’s debt, will its cost of borrowing now fall as a result of today’s announcement? Will the Government’s fiscal rules be changed to take account of the changes to debt and borrowing? Will today’s change affect the deficit? Will the Government and the Office for Budget Responsibility continue to publish borrowing and debt figures excluding these changes, as they have done with the transfer of the Royal Mail pension scheme, so that the underlying changes in borrowing and debt are transparent? Will the Government be taking any additional powers to direct Network Rail’s borrowing now that it will be on the Government’s books, or will the reclassification mean that Network Rail’s borrowing and debt have to be offset by further cuts and tax rises elsewhere? Could the change mean less money being available to invest in the railways? Can the Secretary of State guarantee that passengers will not face higher fares to pay for the debt reclassification? Does he anticipate any structural changes to Network Rail that would take the debt off balance sheet in the future?
	The Secretary of State’s memorandum of understanding announced the appointment of an accounting officer to satisfy Parliament’s accounting and budgeting process. When will that person be in post? What will the audit arrangements be? When can we expect decisions from the Secretary of State on whether to appoint a special director to Network Rail, and on whether he will change the framework for Network Rail executives’ pay and bonuses? How many of them are currently paid more than the Prime Minister? Will he now personally sign off on their pay and bonuses? Can we expect greater transparency in the way in which Network rail operates? Who will be accountable for Network Rail’s performance? Will he tell us who is now responsible for safety on the railways? Is it Network Rail executives, Network Rail members, the permanent secretary or the Secretary of State himself?

Patrick McLoughlin: I thank the hon. Lady for her—I am not quite sure how many—questions. A number were on Network Rail, on which I may respond a little later. It is always amazing to hear the way in which the hon. Lady tries to rewrite history. I notice today that she has said in a press release that it is good to see that the original Heathrow proposals for a third runway
	“of which we were sceptical”
	have been taken off the table. I cannot help but go back to the manifesto on which the hon. Lady fought the last general election; a manifesto written, I think, by the current Leader of the Opposition. The manifesto says:
	“We support a third runway at Heathrow, subject to strict conditions on environmental impact and flight numbers”.
	Something about which they are now sceptical was actually a core part of their transport manifesto at the last general election. I know that there is a rewriting of history going on but when something appears in the manifesto, it is usual to try to stick to it.
	On the welcome for the setting up of Sir Howard Davies’ commission, I do not remember the calls for it initially; I think that the idea was put in place by my predecessor and was announced by me when I became
	Secretary of State for Transport. I am glad that the hon. Lady welcomes the report because this is a big infrastructure issue that takes time to develop. It takes time to work through all the proposals and it is right that we try, if possible, to get as much consensus as we can across parties. One of the commissioners did a report for Labour on infrastructure spending that was published not so long ago. I welcome the hon. Lady’s points on that.
	On the Thames estuary proposals—the Isle of Grain— Sir Howard has said this morning in interviews and in the report that he would hope to have a view on that by the middle of next year and we will then know on which route we are going.
	On the question of what will be in the Queen’s Speech, with the Leader of the House and the Chief Whip here, I am not at this stage able to announce what may or may not be in a future Queen’s speech. I did say that I will respond by the spring to some of the points that Sir Howard has made in the report and I shall stick by that commitment.
	The hon. Lady asked me a number of questions about Network Rail. There will be more time for us to debate this issue as the change comes into operation from September 2014. But as I am here today making the statement, and as I have made a statement on the Office for National Statistics recommendations, which came through only this morning, I will be happy to deal in more detail with specific points that she raised on a number of issues.
	One of the things that the Government and I are keen on is that over the next four years in the CP5 phase of Network Rail’s expenditure, it will invest £38 billion on the railways; far more than it has been investing for some years. That certainly is under no threat whatsoever. We will still see record levels of investment taking place. Some of the other questions she asked are on issues that I am considering.

Simon Burns: Will my right hon. Friend accept that too many Governments of all political parties have fiddled around on the question of airport capacity for too long, which is why the commission is to be welcomed so much? But does he agree that when the final recommendation is made, we need to seek political consensus across the chamber to be able to move forward as quickly as possible? How does he think that consensus can be achieved?

Patrick McLoughlin: There may be a consensus, but there will always be a certain amount of people who are against a consensus. I am not necessarily sure that one gets total consensus on any infrastructure project. It often depends on how it impacts on individual constituents, which is something we have to take into account. We should not run away from that. I hope that, as a result of the detailed work that is being done by the commission and the fact that it is being as open as possible in its dealings with everybody, it will be seen that it is doing a proper and constructive job and will have widespread confidence. Today has been a good example of that, in the way that the shadow Secretary of State has welcomed the initial findings of the report.

John McDonnell: At a minimum, according to the report, 2,000 of my constituents
	will lose their homes, which will be demolished. That could rise to perhaps 10,000 because of homes being rendered unliveable by noise and air pollution. Two primary schools will be demolished, with perhaps two more being rendered unteachable. The threat returns that we may have to dig up our relatives buried in the local cemetery. Where will my constituents find a home? Where will my constituents send their children to school? Where will we bury our dead? Does he appreciate the sense of betrayal that is felt in my community?

Patrick McLoughlin: I know that the hon. Gentleman has spoken very sincerely about this on behalf of his constituents. However, he is prejudging the outcome of the report. The report has not said which option it has gone for. It has come forward with three shortlisted options and another option that will be looked at in the longer term. This is not a fait accompli. The commission’s work will continue over the next 18 months.

Alan Haselhurst: Bearing in mind that the recommendations of the Roskill commission on airport capacity were rejected by successive Governments, does my right hon. Friend accept that until the first concrete, and lots of it, is poured, uncertainty will not be removed from many of the locations that are mentioned by Sir Howard Davies today? Echoing the sentiment of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns), will my right hon. Friend work extremely hard to get bipartisan acceptance of the final recommendations?

Patrick McLoughlin: Not only will I try to get bipartisan agreement, I will try to get tripartisan agreement. I shall not just look at any two parties. I hope that that is the way in which we can move forward. My right hon. Friend has huge experience of this issue and has often made the case for protecting Stansted airport.

Louise Ellman: The Davies commission report includes a shortlist that has on it the recommendation of the Transport Committee for expanding Heathrow, and confirms the importance of connecting the economy of this country with the emerging economies in India, Brazil and China. Does the Secretary of State agree that taking no action means that this country continues to lose out? When does he think the decision should be made?

Patrick McLoughlin: I am sorry; I missed the last bit of the hon. Lady’s question. [Hon. Members: “When do you think the decision should be made?”] I know that the Transport Committee will be seeing Sir Howard at one of its meetings in the early part of January. I agree with the hon. Lady; we will be responding early next year to the recommendations on which Sir Howard has asked us to come to a view.

Julian Huppert: The Government were absolutely right to scrap Labour’s plans for a third runway at Heathrow. I very much welcomed the Prime Minister’s statement:
	“No ifs. No buts. No third runway”.
	I assume the Prime Minister meant it. What assurance can the Secretary of State provide that nothing will be done to breach the Committee on Climate Change recommendations?

Patrick McLoughlin: It is important that everything that Sir Howard is looking at is contained within our climate change obligations. Aircraft are changing; their emissions are changing. What is very unenvironmentally friendly is stacking aircraft above London that are pumping out emissions into the atmosphere.

Alistair Darling: The Commission appears to be recommending another runway at Heathrow, which is exactly where we were 10 years ago. The proposal on Gatwick appears to be “in addition to” rather than “instead of” the proposal at Heathrow. I notice that the Secretary of State studiously avoided expressing an opinion and I understand that he wants to await the outcome of the commission. However, could he tell us whether or not the Government think that the commission is on the right track? Clearly if it is not, it would be better to tell it now, rather than wait until 2015. I join everyone in this House who believes that, 50 years after the Government first looked at what should happen to London airport, we need to make a decision, and we should do so as soon as possible. If we do not, we will fall behind the rest of the world.

Patrick McLoughlin: I am always slightly cautious in the answers I give to the right hon. Gentleman, who has the distinguished record of being one of the longest-serving Transport Secretaries of recent times. I would point out, however, that when he was Secretary of State and the 2003 White Paper was published, there was only one mention of Dubai. Things have changed hugely in aviation over the last few years, which is why it was right to set up this commission. The right hon. Gentleman was wrong on his original assumption: Gatwick is an alternative—it is not necessarily a case of Heathrow and nothing else—as is the Thames estuary.

Cheryl Gillan: The commission report places great importance on the success of all the options it is still looking at through effective and integrated surface transport links. So much so that the commission, which I understand is carrying out, in the Secretary of State’s own words, work that merits the fullest consideration, now intends to examine the HS2 line and the possible HS2 spur to Heathrow. Surely the Government should now wait until this work is completed and the final decision on airport capacity is made before pressing ahead with a high-risk £50 billion project that might end up being built in quite the wrong place.

Patrick McLoughlin: I refer my right hon. Friend to page 202 of the report. I thought that she would raise this issue, so I refer her to paragraph 6.94:
	“A high speed rail spur from the main HS2 line to the airport is not included in the cost estimate, but the Commission will consider the case for this as part of its review of surface access options. It will not, however, consider the case for any re-routing of the main HS2 line.”
	I believe that it is a vital part of the national infrastructure of the United Kingdom.

Caroline Lucas: Is the Secretary of State aware that some of the UK’s leading companies have cut their flights by an average of 38% over the past three years, and does he not recognise that his reckless enthusiasm for new runways will not only
	cause huge harm for the local communities involved, but shows this Government lagging far behind progressive companies that understand the urgency of climate change and are reducing their number of flights on economic as well as environmental grounds?

Patrick McLoughlin: The hon. Lady needs to look at the passenger numbers through the terminals. At Heathrow in 1992, for example, there were 45 million in comparison with 70 million in 2012. At Gatwick in 1992, passenger numbers were 19.9 million, but 34.2 million in 2012. People still want to travel. I am sure that the hon. Lady has holidays only in the United Kingdom and never travels abroad, but a lot of people like the option to go abroad.

Roger Gale: Sir Howard reminds us that Heathrow is 100% full and Gatwick is 85% full. A new build of any kind anywhere is going to take an absolute minimum of 10 years and probably longer. We are losing business to Schiphol, Charles de Gaulle and Dubai now. We have to get to chapter five, paragraph 5.91 on page 163 before we find a paragraph that mentions other airports, and it is dismissive. Manston airport in Kent has the capacity—now, as we speak—to take business from Gatwick and Heathrow to release the capacity we need and to build in the time we need for the right decisions to be taken in the longer term. Will my right hon. Friend please look at it seriously?

Patrick McLoughlin: The commission has looked at a number of options. I draw my hon. Friend’s attention to the conclusions on page 102, where it is made clear that the UK does not face an immediate capacity crisis. Sir Howard and the whole commission are clear that we need to take this decision so that we have the option of a new runway by 2030. That is exactly what we will be doing.

Andy Slaughter: For my constituents, today’s report is proof that the Heathrow lobby’s hold over the Conservative party never went away. The hands of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor are all over this report. One third of those seriously affected by airport noise in Europe live around Heathrow. What is the Secretary of State offering to the 2 million people in west London other than a continued deterioration in their quality of life by the expansion of Heathrow.

Patrick McLoughlin: I remind the hon. Gentleman that he fought the election on the basis of a manifesto saying that there would be a third runway at Heathrow airport. Before he gets on his high horse about what I am doing, perhaps he should consider what that manifesto said. As I have said, the simple fact is that we need to do everything we can to alleviate noise problems; we need to look carefully at the eventual recommendations of the final report. We do not yet have the final recommendations; the time to conduct this type of debate is when we get them.

Angie Bray: My first impression is “so far, so depressing”. I know that this is only an interim report, but my constituents will note that Heathrow is yet again emerging as the favoured option. I should also say that the two options for Heathrow that are flagged up in the report will both be
	particularly bad news for my constituents in Ealing, Chiswick and Acton. Let me ask my right hon. Friend: what on earth more do my constituents have to do to get their message across that any expansion of the noise, pollution and congestion that goes with Heathrow and blights the whole of west London would simply be intolerable?

Patrick McLoughlin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I understand the passion that she and other Members feel about this issue. It is right for us to try to look at and address these issues. We have to see what is happening with aviation noise and how it should be judged. That is why I am very interested in some of the commission’s interim proposals. It will take longer to take a view on that, but I hope to be able to come back in the spring to announce the way forward. This is a very difficult job because these issues have been around for some time. It is right to conduct a proper investigation and, I hope, come up with the right alternative at the end of the day.

Graham Stringer: As Government after Government have ducked this issue, our main European competitors have built many runways, while our new competitors in the middle east have built even more of them. Does the Secretary of State agree that the only way to break this logjam is for both the major political parties represented in this Chamber to give a commitment to accept the conclusions of the Davies report?

Patrick McLoughlin: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, who served for a long time on the Transport Select Committee. I certainly agree with him that it would be good if we could reach a consensus on this matter. Whatever option we come up with will impact on people’s lives and communities. We need to try to do everything we can to address and relieve it, but we also need to look at the options for the longer-term future offered by quieter aeroplanes, for example. An overall consensus would indeed be the best way to move forward on big infrastructure projects.

Crispin Blunt: My right hon. Friend has repeatedly used the phrase “longer term” both in his statement and in replying to questions. The exam question to the commission was how the UK’s status as a leading global aviation hub could be maintained. By any standards on a long-term basis, the commission has failed. Its principal options simply cannot sustain the UK’s position as a long-term hub. The only hope remains the Isle of Grain option. When it comes to consideration of Gatwick, for example, someone will need to explain that doing up Gatwick station will not deal with the capacity issue on the Brighton main line or with the road issues. Someone will also have to explain where a town the size of Crawley is going to be placed.

Patrick McLoughlin: My hon. Friend has just dismissed two options, but no doubt other hon. Members who may be called to speak a little later will dismiss the third option, which my hon. Friend refers to as the “only” option available. That is why we set up a commission—so that we could base our final decisions on proper researched evidence.

Jack Dromey: The chief executive of Birmingham airport, Paul Kehoe, has described the Davies report today as focusing disproportionately on the south-east and entrenching the dominance of the south-east economy to the detriment of growth in the rest of the UK. The Birmingham chamber of commerce has said the same thing. Does the Secretary of State recognise that, in circumstances where Birmingham wants the expansion of its airport, which will be key to economic growth in the midlands, Britain simply cannot succeed through London and the south-east alone?

Patrick McLoughlin: I am a passionate believer in the role of airports outside London. The first time I appeared before the Select Committee, I said that we should stop describing airports such as Birmingham and Manchester as regional airports, because they are major international airports in their own right. I want to see those airports—along with East Midlands airport—serving their local communities. On page 195 of its report, the commission says that it does not see
	“a strong case for expansion at Birmingham”
	at the moment, but that may well change by 2050. Moreover, being served directly by HS2 will give the airport a great opportunity for the future.

Annette Brooke: Will there be an independent assessment of the impact of any proposals on the carbon emission targets of the Committee on Climate Change?

Patrick McLoughlin: The commission is taking all our carbon reduction obligations into account, as I would expect.

Jim Fitzpatrick: At the last general election, both coalition parties opposed an increase in runway capacity in the south-east. I think it is clear that the Conservatives have now realised that that was the wrong decision and have changed their minds, but the Liberal Democrats are still in denial. Most of us want the Davies commission to report earlier than the summer of 2015. Who set the deadline—the Secretary of State, Sir Howard, or the Liberal Democrats?

Patrick McLoughlin: I note that the hon. Gentleman is now speaking from the Back Benches about a subject on which he used to speak from the Front Bench. When he was on the Front Bench, I challenged him to tell us, if his was such an easy solution, what proposals he would support. He was unable to answer that question from the Front Bench, but perhaps he will be able to do so from his more privileged position on the Back Benches.

Zac Goldsmith: I note the answer that the Secretary of State has just given, but does he not accept that no serious political party can go into the next general election without a clear opinion on an issue that matters to so many people and so many businesses in this country? That is simply not a credible position for any party to have.

Patrick McLoughlin: I know my hon. Friend’s views on this matter, and I know that he fights passionately on behalf of his constituents. However, I think it right for
	us to try to obtain an answer that is, as far as possible, based on good evidence and good research. That is what the commission is doing, and it will report by the summer of 2015.

Phil Wilson: According to the Davies report, London continues to accommodate the largest overseas destination market in the world. What more can be done to enable regional airports such as Durham Tees Valley airport, which is in my constituency, to have access to that market by ensuring that it is given Heathrow slots sooner rather than later? May I also ask the Secretary of State to discuss with his colleagues in the Treasury the possibility of varying the levels of air passenger duty around the country, which would help all United Kingdom airports?

Patrick McLoughlin: I think that the biggest increases in APD occurred under the last Government rather than this one. At a time when we are trying to reduce the deficit, it is always easy to find ways of making cuts, but we must then find a replacement for that certain income. As for the hon. Gentleman’s question about regional airports, I remind him of what I said a few moments ago about their importance to local communities.

Jason McCartney: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the provision of more long-haul services from, for instance, Manchester airport, and Leeds Bradford International airport—which my constituents use—to China, India and the other emerging markets would help to ease all the congestion at London’s airports? Could that not be part of the solution?

Patrick McLoughlin: It might play a role in easing some of the congestion, but the overall evidence shows that there is continuing growth in aviation traffic, and the commission is giving that careful consideration.

Gemma Doyle: Will the Secretary of State consider seriously the issue of connectivity throughout the United Kingdom, particularly in relation to Scotland? Connections to the south-east are extremely important, and if we do not get a move on, we shall be in danger of strangling growth throughout the UK.

Patrick McLoughlin: I understand exactly where the hon. Lady is coming from. Concern has been expressed in a number of regions about the accessibility of London. However, people could consider using other airports, such as Luton and Stansted.

Edward Leigh: Do the Government accept the commission’s contention that a new runway needs to be built in the south-east before, or by, 2030?

Patrick McLoughlin: I believe that what the commission has said is important, but we must await its final proposals and establish whether we can work to that deadline.

Jim Shannon: Let me first thank the Secretary of State for his statement. He described the United Kingdom as an international aviation hub.
	What discussions has he had with representatives of Belfast City, Belfast International and City of Derry airports in Northern Ireland to ensure that the viable transport links to which he referred can be solidified and all regions can benefit from them?

Patrick McLoughlin: Having responded to questions from the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, I am well aware of the importance to Northern Ireland of its connections with London. I have had no direct conversations with the Northern Ireland Assembly, but I have of course listened to what colleagues in the House of Commons have had to say.

Bernard Jenkin: I commend the Howard Davies commission for recognising that the Isle of Grain cannot be lightly dismissed and merits further consideration. However, he said this morning, when comparing it with the other proposals, that the Thames estuary proposal was
	“a much more extensive proposition for shifting the economic geography of the south-east of England by creating a new pole of economic development.”
	Is that within the remit of the commission?

Patrick McLoughlin: I should make clear that by “he said”, my hon. Friend meant what Sir Howard Davies had said, rather than any words that I might have said.
	The commission must look at the whole proposal, and it has said that it will do so, because it is completely different from the proposals that certain airports have been making themselves. The matter will be addressed in the report which Sir Howard has said he hopes to produce by next summer.

Gisela Stuart: I am not sure that I derive much comfort from the information that the expansion of Birmingham airport may be decided in 2050, by which time I shall be 95 years old. May I suggest something that the Secretary of State could do now? He could compel Network Rail to come up with a strategy to improve surface access to airports, so that those such as Birmingham which have spare capacity can be properly connected?

Patrick McLoughlin: I am not sure that I wish to comment on the first part of the hon. Lady’s question—it might not be the thing to do from the Dispatch Box—but I will say that I know Birmingham airport very well, having used it on a number of occasions. It is not badly connected at present, but there is room for improvements, and I naturally want to think about ways of making those improvements. I believe that the direct connection between HS2 and Birmingham airport will give it the potential to develop in that way.

Mr Speaker: Order. The Chair must be very careful when it comes to these matters, but I must say that I found the age-related facet of the hon. Lady’s question utterly implausible.

Andrew Bridgen: A suppressed Cabinet Office report on HS2 raises major concerns about its risky construction timetable, its poor management and the insufficient work done on costs, and also questions the capability of those involved in the delivery of the project. Will my right hon. Friend
	tell us whether the Government are prepared to publish the report by the Major Projects Authority?

Patrick McLoughlin: I do not think that there is any shortage of reports on HS2, be they from the National Audit Office, from the Transport Committee, or in the form of evidence given to the Treasury Committee. There is a huge number of such reports that people can consult rather than consulting a report that is more than two years old.

Ian Austin: Birmingham airport is right in the middle of the country and right next to the major motorways of the United Kingdom, and, with HS2, it will be within easy reach of the vast majority of the people who live in Britain. People living in the west midlands will be utterly staggered to learn that they must wait until 2050 for any consideration to be given to its expansion.

Patrick McLoughlin: It is not a case of waiting until 2050 for any consideration of that airport’s expansion; what I said, and what the report said, is that there will be a need for a new runway in the south-east by 2030 and then probably for another runway in 2050, and at that stage that airport could be one of the considerations. But a huge amount is still going on at Birmingham airport. I am not going to talk that airport down now, and I do not want anyone else to do so. It has extended its runway and has a lot more availability, and I want it to be able to prosper, along the lines that other airports, such as Manchester, have done.

Michael Fabricant: I very much agree with the comments made by the Chairman of the Transport Committee that the current situation is an option that cannot go on for much longer, but I also agree with comments made by Opposition Members about the connectivity with Birmingham. Given that senior engineers in HS2 doubt the efficiency, cost and environmental suitability of the route, would it not make sense to link HS2 directly not only from Birmingham to central London, but to whichever airport is chosen to have that third runway?

Patrick McLoughlin: I am not sure which people in HS2 my hon. Friend is referring to when he says that they are opposed to the current route. We are committed to that route and have deposited the Bill before the House.

Jonathan Reynolds: There is a widespread feeling that the airports issue is symptomatic of this country’s poor approach to long-term infrastructure planning. Clearly there will be winners and losers whichever decision is made, but the truth is that a decision will still need to be made. If we need two runways by 2050, will the Government make a provisional decision on both, thus finally bringing some long-term certainty to this issue?

Patrick McLoughlin: I am not sure that we will make a decision on both of them in one go. As I say, the report is very clear: we will need an additional runway by 2030 and, in all likelihood, another by 2050. A number of things will have changed by then, so it would be wrong at this stage to start saying exactly what the next runway beyond the next runway will be, because the infrastructure
	I have talked about, such as HS2, will be in place and other airports will come much more into play.

Karen Lumley: The Government are determined to build HS2, rebalance our economy and make Birmingham airport 38 minutes from London Euston. Does the Secretary of State share my concern and disappointment today that Birmingham airport was not included in the initial recommendations?

Patrick McLoughlin: What I am seeing, and what I see nearly everywhere I go, is a strong lobbying exercise, or representation exercise, on behalf of Birmingham airport, and rightly so because it is a very good airport—I like it and use it regularly. What Birmingham has already done, through its expansion and extending the runway, means that it will be able to offer lots more services to the people of the west midlands, and I very much hope to take advantage of that.

Chris Bryant: Will most ordinary people listening to this debate not conclude that a politician who cannot make a decision is no more use than a chocolate teapot? If we are going to keep on procrastinating and if the Government cannot even decide that Boris island is not going to float, they have run out of steam.

Patrick McLoughlin: Coming from somebody who was 13 years in a Government who refused to make—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman was 13 years in Parliament supporting a Government—avidly, on every occasion—who continually failed to take any decisions about major infrastructure projects, yet he now complains that this Government, who have made more progress on the railways and on aviation, are somehow slacking in making their decision.

Rob Wilson: Heathrow is crucial to the continued economic vibrancy of towns such as Reading and to foreign inward investment into the Thames valley region. Airport capacity does need to expand, but so, too, does surface access to Heathrow. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the Heathrow rail link to Reading and from the west is immediately brought forward from the 2021 timeline currently in progress?

Patrick McLoughlin: My hon. Friend is a very big advocate of more infrastructure investment in Reading, where we are currently spending some £880 million on a major refurbishment of Reading station, which will greatly enhance the capabilities for surface access to Reading. However, I note his early applications for even more investment in his area.

Paul Goggins: One issue that merits greater consideration than the half page given by the commission is the proposal for a temporary exemption from air passenger duty for new long-haul routes from airports outside London. Such an exemption would help airports such as Manchester to develop new routes to China. Will the Secretary of State make sure that this idea stays on the table?

Patrick McLoughlin: The right hon. Gentleman, by his mentioning the proposal, has just done exactly that.

Caroline Spelman: The Davies report states that expansion at Birmingham airport would have a “relatively high” noise impact compared with the alternatives, but ironically a second runway would have taken the noise further way from areas of habitation. Will the Secretary of State look also at the road surface access to the existing extended runway, as that can currently be a source of gridlock at a very important transport node?

Patrick McLoughlin: I will of course look at that important issue, as my right hon. Friend asks. Her constituency is very much affected by the entire road network around that area, and by the rail and airport expansion, so I will look seriously at the point she raises.

Mark Lazarowicz: On the Network Rail statement, given the way in which responsibilities for rail services in Scotland are divided between the Scottish and UK Governments, how will responsibility for the net debt of £30 billion or its servicing be divided between those Governments?

Patrick McLoughlin: I will write to the hon. Gentleman about that.

John Randall: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on coming to the House to make a statement on an interim report. I am delighted to hear him confirm that the Government have no set position on this matter, but I am sure he will be reassured to know that people in Hillingdon, including my honourable comrade, the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), will be dusting off the campaign material and once again proving that any expansion at Heathrow is politically and environmentally undeliverable.

Patrick McLoughlin: My right hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman will be a formidable team in their campaigning approach to this matter. I know they will do so, but I also urge them to submit their views to the commission as it moves to its next phase in preparing its final report.

Ian Lucas: The Aerospace Growth Partnership, with strong environmental safeguards, is supported by all three main parties—even the Liberal Democrats have signed up. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) made the good suggestion that all three parties should commit to the outcome reached by the Davies inquiry. Will the Secretary of State explore that with all main parties?

Patrick McLoughlin: Yes.

Lorely Burt: I thought that Sir Howard’s remit was to examine the need for aviation provision for the whole UK economy, so does my right hon. Friend share my disappointment that he seems focused on the self-fulfilling prophecy that growth feeds further demand in the south-east? Does my right hon. Friend share my wish for further consideration to be given to growth in resurgent economies, and, thus, to Birmingham international airport, for the midlands, and to other regional airports and economies?

Patrick McLoughlin: The commission has had to work on the basis of what is actually happening in aviation: Heathrow has 99% usage and Gatwick is also filling up,
	but other airports in London are not as busy at the moment. So it is right that the commission has done the overall work and the proper work, and has made an interim suggestion. The Davies commission does also talk about the importance of regional airports, and nobody is denying that; I would much prefer more services to be available for people so that they would not necessarily have to travel into London to use an airport of demand. However, the availability of services does attract a lot of passengers to airports in the south-east.

Andrew Gwynne: New airport capacity must go hand in hand with our efforts to reduce CO2 omissions from aviation, as the Secretary of State mentioned in his statement. Given that his Government abandoned the UK’s target to be at or below 2005 levels by 2050, what guarantees can he give to the House to ensure that those considerations are included in the final plans?

Patrick McLoughlin: If the hon. Gentleman takes time to reflect and to look at the various appointments to the commission, he will see that we have taken incredibly seriously the environment and our environmental commitments.

Martin Vickers: I invite my right hon. Friend to expand a little on the role of regional airports. Will he give an assurance that the Government will recognise the important role that smaller regional airports can play, not just in easing the burden on traffic to the south-east but in providing economic growth to areas such as the Humber region?

Patrick McLoughlin: I cannot add very much to what I have said already. I agree with my hon. Friend, but it is difficult for some regional airports to attract new services. That is one of the big changes that we have seen as far as the aviation industry is concerned, and I am keen to do anything I can to encourage those regional airports to be able to provide more services.

Stephen McCabe: In that regard, Birmingham could cater for two thirds of the projected passenger increase from building a new runway at Heathrow at less than 2% of the £6 billion cost, without the need to demolish schools, villages or homes. Why are those considerations not worthy to be looked at now?

Patrick McLoughlin: Those considerations were looked at by the commission, and there is someone on the commission who works in Birmingham.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: The time has come to call a patient dame. Dame Angela Watkinson.

Angela Watkinson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that increased airport capacity and quieter aircraft will not just benefit the UK economy but improve the quality of life of my constituents in Hornchurch and Upminster and those in the rest of Greater London by reducing stacking of aircraft, which currently have nowhere to land?

Patrick McLoughlin: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One thing that causes too much pollution is stacking aircraft. Through better traffic management and longer traffic management of aircraft, a lot has been done to improve the flows into airports so that there is orderly access and entry into Heathrow, but more work can be done on that. That is one of the interim recommendations of the commission.

Huw Irranca-Davies: In his statement, the Secretary of State rightly described the increase in airport capacity in the south-east as the “engine for growth”. The same applies in south Wales. Will he directly engage with the Welsh Government on how Cardiff airport can develop its services so that it can play its part in both UK and regional growth?

Patrick McLoughlin: That matter is now in the domain of the Welsh Assembly. I am due to meet its Transport Minister, who will no doubt want to discuss the issue, some time in the new year.

Mark Reckless: Can the Mayor of London expect any Government money to promote his imaginative proposal, and if so, could we also have some in Medway? Given that the page numbers in the Secretary of State’s report are different from those I got from the commission, can he shed any light on the late change in the report to include a Grain option and tell us whether meetings with the Prime Minister and the Chancellor last week played any part in that?

Patrick McLoughlin: It is true that my report did not come off a PDF document, but I am not sure whether the page numbers differ from those in the report received by my hon. Friend. How the Mayor of London spends the considerable amounts of money that he has at his disposal is a matter for him.

Jessica Lee: Does my right hon. Friend agree that within these important considerations about aviation expansion fits the complementary issue of supporting nationwide infrastructure? With that in mind, will he assure the House that Ilkeston train station is on target for opening at the end of 2014? Such news will perhaps bring a bit of extra festive cheer to the good people of Erewash.

Patrick McLoughlin: I assure my hon. Friend that everything I have said about Network Rail and its reclassification will have no impact on the courageous campaign that she has mounted to get a railway station open in Ilkeston by next December. When I was in Ilkeston recently, it was suggested to me that it should be called not Ilkeston station but Jessica’s junction.

James Morris: I welcome the recommendation in the Davies commission on the use of existing airport capacity, particularly the reiteration of the support for Birmingham gateway. Does the Secretary of State share my disappointment that the commission has not been bolder in looking at Birmingham airport as a long-term solution? If we are considering options in London and the south-east, would it not have made more sense to have a credible option outside the area, because it could have a transformative effect on the west midlands economy?

Patrick McLoughlin: I am pleased to see the Birmingham lobbying exercise spread across the whole of the west midlands. There is clearly a united front on the matter. I know that Sir Howard will look at the exchanges today, but there is nothing to stop Birmingham airport from expanding; indeed, I encourage that. At the moment, the airport is not utilised to its full capabilities. Many more services can be provided from Birmingham now that the extension of the airport has been completed.

Stuart Andrew: The aviation White Paper in 2003 stated that expansion of Leeds Bradford airport would need surface access improvements, yet we have seen very few. In this report, chapter 5 makes specific reference to surface access to other airports and recommends that the Government work with local authorities to ensure that such improvements take place. Will the Secretary of State make sure that Leeds Bradford airport will be looked at because my constituents have to suffer many people going past their homes on very overcrowded roads?

Patrick McLoughlin: Following my hon. Friend’s representations, I am delighted to give him the assurances that he requires. I will also come to his constituency and look at the situation there.

Jackie Doyle-Price: The Mayor of London claims that Heathrow is a planning error. It is not; it is our hub airport. As my right hon. Friend is well aware, the Thames estuary is home to some significant ports infrastructure. Is it not to be hoped that the Davies commission rules out, once and for all, a Thames estuary airport, particularly as we already have an excellent airport at Southend?

Patrick McLoughlin: As I have said to various colleagues, everyone will have an opinion if they have something in their own localities. I will await the outcome of the commission’s report, but I take what my hon. Friend has said seriously.

David Nuttall: Let us forget Birmingham and Leeds Bradford and get back to Manchester. Given that Heathrow is already operating at full capacity and it is likely to be years before any option being considered by the Davies commission is built, may I ask my right hon. Friend what steps he is taking to encourage greater use of these regional airports—or major international airports as he calls them? May I suggest that a useful and popular first step would be to reduce airport passenger duty for new long-haul flights from regional airports, which would not cost the Treasury anything because they do not exist at the moment?

Patrick McLoughlin: I am always keen to hear about schemes that cost no money whatever. Colleagues often convince me of a scheme but, unfortunately, when I go to the Treasury the idea is usually dismissed in fairly short terms. None the less, I understand my hon. Friend’s point. The truth is that Manchester has expanded and is, without any doubt, now a major international airport. I am just sorry that no one has mentioned East Midlands airport, which is also owned by Manchester airport.

Neil Carmichael: Forty years ago, a Labour Government cancelled the Maplin airport project, thus creating the situation we now have with under-capacity.
	Now that we have a second chance to get this right, does the Secretary of State agree that any report from Sir Howard’s commission should include a proper analysis of the advantages of a new airport east of London?

Patrick McLoughlin: As I have said and as Sir Howard has been at pains to say in his statements today, if this was an easy decision it would have been taken some time ago. It is not an easy decision to take. It is right that we should consider all the facts and our environmental commitments, too, and that is the work that the commission has embarked on.

Robert Halfon: Will my right hon. Friend commend the Manchester Airports Group for its new stewardship of Stansted airport? Although I note that the report suggests that an extra runway is environmentally unsustainable and economically unviable, it also considers the expansion of the existing runway. If that happens, will my right hon. Friend ensure that the Government invest in the infrastructure in the M11 and the railways and ensure that local people are employed to help with the extra expansion?

Patrick McLoughlin: I certainly commend Manchester Airports Group for how they have taken over Stansted and I hope that they will continue the public engagement with people from around the area. At the moment, it is estimated that there is room for growth at Stansted without any extra runway capacity. My hon. Friend makes the point about how important airports are for jobs and for giving people opportunities.

Philip Hollobone: Given the crucial role that Network Rail plays in the provision of Britain’s transport infrastructure, not least at the moment through the necessary but highly disruptive work in Kettering in preparation for the welcome electrification of the midland main line, does my right hon. Friend think that it is as efficient as it might be in providing Britain’s railway infrastructure and does he regard its extraordinary and expensive corporate structure as fit for purpose?

Patrick McLoughlin: As I announced in my statement, Network Rail has been reclassified and is charged with some important projects. My hon. Friend refers to the electrification of the line that serves both his constituency and mine, but I would also point out the big infrastructure jobs that Network Rail has undertaken, such as the closure for six weeks in the summer of Nottingham station and the complete resignalling in that area. That project came in under budget. The projects are very big and, obviously, certain consequences will flow from the changes. It is vital that there is no question but that the huge investment we have committed to Network Rail will be delivered over the next five years.

Rehman Chishti: The Secretary of State will be aware of the comments made by Sir Howard Davies, who said that the estuary airport would cost about £80 billion to £110 billion and would cause massive disruption. Do the Government have that amount of money to spend when there are other, better, environmentally friendly options? Those views are shared by my constituents in Gillingham and Rainham and the local authority, Medway council. They are bitterly opposed to that bizarre idea on those grounds and many others.

Patrick McLoughlin: One thing that will have to be considered if such proposals are made is how they will be paid for. I am, however, aware that figures for transport infrastructure projects sometimes get greatly inflated. This one started off at about £75 billion, it has grown to £100 billion, my hon. Friend says that it is £110 billion and I have no doubt that by next week it will be around the £150 billion mark.

Mark Garnier: In his statement, my right hon. Friend said that he is seeking political consensus on both sides of the House. By now, he will no doubt have gathered that there is practically political unanimity behind Birmingham airport. Is not the important point that rebalancing the economy of the UK is about not just regions but sectors? Significant expansion at Birmingham would rebalance the economy not just out of the south-east but away from the service sector, supporting our industrial heartlands in the midlands.

Patrick McLoughlin: My hon. Friend makes yet another representation from the Birmingham grouping—[Interruption.] The Birmingham mafia, as Members say. As he knows, there is nothing to stop Birmingham airport expanding significantly. There is spare capacity there at the moment and it has to attract carriers in to the airport. I am keen to see it do that and for that to become available to the whole of the west midlands.

Marcus Jones: The west midlands is one of the only regions to have a positive balance of trade. The Government want to build on that rebalancing by investing in HS2. To properly integrate our transport infrastructure, does my right hon. Friend not agree that the future development of Birmingham international airport should feature far more heavily in the final Davies report than it does in the interim one?

Patrick McLoughlin: I do not know whether I have been kiboshed as far as Birmingham is concerned, but my hon. Friends on both sides of the House have made clear to me how important they consider the airport to be. There is nothing to stop the expansion of Birmingham airport. It has done a lot to increase capacity and I hope that more services can be attracted to Birmingham.

Points of Order

Michael Fabricant: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I cannot think of anyone less like a chocolate teapot than my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. May I invite you to prepare a booklet of various examples of intemperate language, such as “chocolate teapot”, that you think might be inappropriate in this House?

Mr Speaker: The truth of the matter is that it is all about the context in which remarks are made. The hon. Gentleman, who is a keen student of parliamentary history—although I do not think he has written a book on the subject, so in that sense he would not compete with the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant)—will be aware that there was at one time a list of proscribed words, but the list was discontinued, partly, I think, on the grounds that it was so extensive as to become unmanageable. It was judged instead that it was for the Chair to make a judgment about the manner in which something is said and the context in which words are used. I hope that the insatiable curiosity of the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) has now been satisfied, for today at any rate.

Chris Bryant: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I think that I am right to say that on one occasion the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) accused me of being a teapot. He seems to think that what is right for a teapot is not right for a chocolate teapot.

Mr Speaker: I fear that this exchange will descend. Colleagues will be aware that the hon. Member for Lichfield previously served in the Whips Office with considerable dedication and loyalty under the leadership of the man who now serves as the Secretary of State for Transport. Whether that explains the differential treatment, I do not know, but I hope that we will leave the matter of teapots and other items there for today.

Mental Health Outcomes (Measurement)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Robert Buckland: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Secretary of State to record certain statistics relating to people receiving treatments for mental health conditions; and for connected purposes.
	The Bill is not about a headlong drive towards box-ticking and bureaucracy in our NHS, but about finding the most effective way of achieving true parity of esteem between physical and mental health. Parity of esteem, or equal priority for mental health and physical health, has been enshrined in statute by the Health and Social Care Act 2012—a very welcome measure.
	A year ago, the Department of Health published the NHS mandate, in which it identified a number of areas in which it expects particular progress to be made. One of those priorities is to deliver
	“a service that values mental and physical health equally.”
	Amen to that. How will that be achieved? The Government state in the mandate that they expect NHS England to be able comprehensively to identify levels of access to, and waiting times for, mental health services in the community. Again, that is welcome, but let us take a moment to look at the current ways in which performance in mental health services is measured. The NHS outcomes framework is the mechanism, and it is working well to cover physical health outcomes. When it comes to mental outcomes, however, the picture remains incomplete.
	What I am seeking is an improvement in the range and depth of information. I am after quality, not quantity. Why? It is because I want to see developing in our local communities mental health services that genuinely reflect local need. I welcome the publication this month by the Minister, who is in his place, of the mental health dashboard, which brings together existing information about mental health provision. I note that in that document there is an acceptance that the range and type of information available will have to develop, but there is a concern that consistency and stability in what the dashboard measures are maintained. My proposals today will, I believe, deepen the quality evidence while maintaining that stability.
	I further welcome the creation of the mental health intelligence network by NHS England and Public Health England. It sounds a bit James Bond, but it is a practical means which will be launched next year to devise more effective ways in which quality information can be gathered. However, unless more work is done to fill in the gaps in relation to mental health outcomes, I fear that important opportunities will be missed.
	What measurements do we have so far? We have mortality rates of adults under 75 with severe mental health conditions. That information is being collected and it is relevant to the first part of the NHS outcomes framework. Those statistics reveal that life expectancy is 15 to 20 years shorter than the average in England; they also reveal the extent of co-morbid physical conditions. Already, we can see how such information is crucial to making the right interventions and tackling those appalling statistics. There are also measurements related to improving
	access to psychological services, which have helped to drive the commissioning of more and more services at a local level. I warmly welcome that. However, like the proverbial Swiss cheese, gaps both in the range and quality of measurement remain. I believe that mortality data should be broken down further to clinical commissioning group level, which would help to identify particular local needs—not just mental health needs, but physical needs.
	Part 3 of the NHS outcomes framework aims to measure how well NHS services help people to recover from illness or injury. A useful measurement of recovery is the number of people who have or have had mental health conditions who are able to gain employment. There are national measurements, but they are not reflected in local indicators. If we are to drive more locally based employment support services, that needs to change. The outcomes framework is very much focused on acute services, so measurement of their use by mental health patients, broken down locally, would be very useful in helping to determine the extent of our community services or where, to put it bluntly, firefighting is taking place, as opposed to interventions in the community.
	Part 4 of the outcomes framework deals with how well health services provide a positive experience of care, so measures of psychiatric in-patient or secure services have to be made. In-patients at acute hospitals undergoing treatment for physical conditions are rightly asked for a lot of information, all designed to make services more attuned to aspects such as age and gender, for example. We owe this to mental health patients using acute services too. They are among the most vulnerable people in our society and a service that is
	better attuned to their individual needs will yield better results. At present there is no collection of information about the duration of untreated psychosis—in other words, the length of time it takes between someone presenting with a psychosis and their treatment. How will we comprehensively identify problems with delays in referral and treatment if this is not done?
	In relation to people detained under the Mental Health Act, let us not forget that we still have far too many people, including children, being detained in police cells, rather than in an appropriate place of safety. The number of incidences is recorded, but not the outcome. That is another example of how a lack of quality information prevents this issue from being properly prioritised and prevents local analysis of need.
	One in four of us will experience some form of mental health condition in the year ahead, and 10% of children in the United Kingdom have a mental health condition. Many children and adults will have co-morbid physical and mental health problems. The division between physical and mental health is an artificial one which must be removed. They need—we need—commissioned services that are truly responsive to our demands. Parity of esteem must become a reality. I commend my Bill as a means of achieving that.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Ordered,
	That Mr Robert Buckland, supported by Caroline Nokes, Annette Brooke, Mike Freer, Yasmin Qureshi, Mrs Madeleine Moon, James Morris, Mike Thornton, Caroline Lucas, Grahame M. Morris, Oliver Colvile and John Hemming present the Bill.
	Mr Robert Buckland accordingly presented the Bill.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 28 February 2014, and to be printed (Bill 147).

Local Audit and Accountability Bill

Consideration of Bill, as amended in the Public Bill Committee

New Clause 1
	 — 
	Integrated audit

‘(1) Before section 1 of this Act is brought into force, the Secretary of State shall, by regulations, put into effect arrangements for integrated audit which enables auditors to work across authorities and with the National Audit Office, where national and local funding is being used jointly.’.—(Andy Sawford.)
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Andy Sawford: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Lindsay Hoyle: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	New clause 2—Transparency of audit
	‘(1) A local auditor has a right of access at all reasonable times to audit documents from private companies to whom the local authority has contracted significant services during the last financial year.
	(2) Local auditors only have a right of access to audit documents from private companies, under subsection (1), that relate to the service provided to the local authority by that company.
	(3) A local auditor must make available on request any audit documents, obtained under subsection (1), subject to the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
	(4) In this section “private company” shall be interpreted to mean any legal entity, including joint ventures, not-for-profit organisations, mutually-held organisations and charities.
	(5) Five years after the coming into force of this section, the Secretary of State must commission and publish a review of the effectiveness of subsections (1) to (3) and of the costs to local auditors, private companies and local authorities arising from it.
	(6) The meaning of “significant” and “terms of qualification” shall be set out by regulations.’.
	New clause 4—Scrutiny
	‘Before section 1 of this Act is brought into force, the Secretary of State shall prepare and lay before each House of Parliament a report on the effectiveness, efficiency and economy of the structures and procedures put in place by relevant local authorities, under section 21 of the Local Government Act 2000 (Overview and scrutiny committees), to review the decisions made, or other action taken, by the executives of such local authorities.’.
	New clause 5—Fraud investigation
	‘Before section 1 of this Act is brought into force, the Secretary of State shall prepare and lay before each House of Parliament a report on the adequacy of the resources, staffing, structures and procedures put in place by authorities to detect and investigate fraud within the authority effectively.’.
	New clause 6—Compromise agreements
	‘Before section 1 of this Act is brought into force, the Secretary of State shall prepare and lay before each House of Parliament a report into the extent and appropriateness of the use of compromise agreements, incorporating confidentiality clauses, as provided for by section 203 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, to effect the exit of members of staff from employment by local authorities.’.
	Government amendment 1.
	Amendment 13,in clause 20, page15,line24, at end insert—
	‘(7) A person providing commercial or consultancy services to an authority may not audit those services.
	(8) The audit of any commercial or consultancy services provided by a person appointed as a local auditor must be subcontracted to a different local auditor.’.
	Government amendments 2 and 3.
	Amendment 12,in schedule 2, page43,line8, at end insert—
	30 A Local Enterprise Partnership.’.
	Government amendments 4 and 5.

Andy Sawford: I shall speak to new clauses 1 and 2.
	This is a better Bill for the scrutiny that it has received as a result of the work of the draft Bill Committee, the Communities and Local Government Committee and the House of Lords, and in Committee in this House, where I was pleased to receive substantial reassurances from the Minister, clarifications and explanations on many points. Some welcome concessions have been made, both during the Committee stage and in some of the amendments before us today.
	Three years ago in a press release the Government announced the abolition of the Audit Commission, without thinking it through. There has been considerable criticism of the fact that there was no real consultation with local government, and when the announcement was made prematurely, the audit world was not consulted on how the new arrangements might evolve. That has led to a range of problems in the Bill. It is very much a backward-looking piece of legislation that seeks to post-rationalise a premature announcement that took most people by surprise.
	The Audit Commission was abolished without proper consideration of how to maintain some of its more valuable functions, such as enabling local authorities to make comparisons and to use benchmarking tools to see whether they are spending the public pound as well as possible, and acting as an independent auditor, to bring transparency and public confidence to public audit. The Government had not thought through crucial issues such as how to maintain independence of audit, which we will come to later with out amendments to increase transparency, particularly new clause 2.
	The Government had overestimated and double-counted the savings that may accrue. They had failed properly to address concerns that the audit market for local government is too limited. However, there is a bright spot. The Government’s reluctant U-turn on joint procurement is very much to be welcomed. It follows submissions from my noble Friends in the House of Lords and from the Local Government Association, the National Association of Local Councils and many other bodies. We tabled amendments in Committee to allow local authorities to form a joint procurement body, and we were pleased when, towards the end of the Committee stage, the Government introduced, albeit through gritted teeth, a new clause to do just that. The Government have not been clear about who will lead the development of that joint procurement body, but I urge them to work closely with the Local Government Association, the principal representative body for local government.
	New clause 1 seeks to enable auditors to follow the public pound through the system. It would require the
	Secretary of State to make arrangements for integrated audit so that auditors can work across local authorities, and other relevant authorities at a local level, and with the National Audit Office where national and local funding is being used jointly. The problem that the new clause aims to solve is that the audit arrangements set out in the Bill are too narrowly focused on the relevant authority as a self-contained unit.
	The Government have therefore failed to provide for the changing world of public services. Shared services, community budgets, which both they and the Opposition strongly support and which local authorities across the country—notably, many Labour councils—are taking forward, and combined authorities are all part of a shift towards much stronger partnership working by local authorities. There is also a specific point about local enterprise partnerships that I will come to later.
	The previous Labour Government introduced the Total Place initiative in their last years in office. By enabling authorities to join together for some parts of their audit, we hope that we can see the value for money of the Total Place approach and that that will be a spur to further joining up. By bringing the National Audit Office into that approach to integrated joint audit, we can follow the public pound up and down the system for local and national spend.
	The new clause is about future-proofing the Bill. In Committee the Government resisted all attempts to reference integrated audit or community budgeting approaches. In that sense, I think that the Bill will lead to an atomised approach to auditing, rather than a connected view. It has completely failed to make provision for the new world of public service delivery being built before our eyes, and not just the changes in local authorities that I have identified, but wider changes such as the troubled families programme and welfare changes, particularly the introduction of universal credit. They are all looking at connecting spending across the country. It is astonishing that the world of audit envisaged by the Bill takes no account of that at all.
	We now have city deals, which should be properly audited. Indeed, we explored in Committee how they and other bodies, particularly those focused on enterprise partnerships and working with business, might be audited when it is not possible to bring together different auditors. As community budgets develop, different auditors will examine the use of the local government pound while the National Audit Office examines the use of the Whitehall pound, although they are actually being spent together. If a service is shared and common, surely it makes sense that the audit should be, too.
	Another example is health and social care—the subject of the legislation we debated only yesterday. We need to see the future of the health service as one in which we meet the challenges of a rising elderly population, with people living longer and more independently. Local authorities, through their social care role, and health bodies will work jointly. Indeed, there are significant moves in that direction through local health and wellbeing boards. It would make sense for audit to be able to follow that pattern of more joint services.
	Parliament has a strong interest in seeing that public money is spent well, whether nationally or locally. That was the drive behind Lord Heseltine’s introduction of
	the Audit Commission all those years ago. Parliament previously drew some assurance from the Audit Commission’s national work on value for money, but that work is winding down and the value for money assurances offered in the Bill are very limited. Indeed, we sought clarification on those points in Committee, and we had some reassurances from the Minister, but they were not sufficient for us to believe that that work will be carried out in the way it ought to be.
	That point becomes increasingly relevant as Government policy cuts across departmental silos as fresh patterns of local delivery develop and local authorities commission services from, and develop partnerships with, an ever wider range of providers. The ad hoc Bill Committee that scrutinised the draft Local Audit Bill was absolutely right to state that the Bill should provide an unambiguous basis for insight into spend across central and local government, but as it stands it does not. Would it not be sensible—I ask this again in the hope that the Minister will change his mind at the eleventh hour—in the management of audit contracts if two authorities working together substantially and significantly could appoint a lead audit for a particular set of services, rather than having two separate auditors crawling over the same books and duplicating how they look at the same services, perhaps even reaching different conclusions?
	We would rather have auditors work together to reach a shared view on whether services represent value for money and whether public money is being spent effectively, so an audit presented to a relevant authority might contain sections that had been prepared jointly and appropriately with other auditors of local spend, perhaps those from other relevant authorities or the National Audit Office. That audit would then be much more valuable, and not only to the council, but to the public and Parliament, in showing whether money was being spent well. For example, in my area there is an arrangement for shared services between Northamptonshire and Cambridgeshire county councils. There are questions about whether that genuinely delivers value for money. I am concerned that an audit in which they are each treated entirely separately and reported on separately will not give us a real sense of whether the partnership is delivering the value for money that I and my constituents want to see.
	I therefore appeal to the Minister to have a change of heart. He is a former council leader. He might well return to local government after the next election or at some future time, when I am sure he would be very grateful that the Government had created audit arrangements fit for the new world of local government, not the old one.
	This might be the most appropriate time to refer to amendment 12, which seeks to add local enterprise partnerships to the list of relevant authorities set out in schedule 2. LEPs have a growing role in the local public sector and partnership landscape. They are charged with driving local economic growth. From next year their role will increase, as they will be tasked with developing investment strategies for European structural funds; looking after skills for employment; leading on community-led local development; taking on board economic and social inclusion; looking at environment and climate change issues in local communities; taking forward social innovation, ICT and digital inclusion; and tackling youth unemployment. Indeed, the Government
	seem to view LEPs as a panacea for how many areas of local public service reform, enterprise and regeneration will be taken forward.
	However, since the establishment of LEPs three years ago, and particularly following the publication of Lord Heseltine’s report “No Stone Unturned”, while their remit has expanded dramatically and the roles and responsibilities of their boards have changed, there has not been a commensurate consideration by the Government of how to address the governance, capacity, audit and probity of LEPs.
	From next year, LEPs will receive central Government money, including a share of the £6 billion from the European regional development fund, a share of the £24 million growth money from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, a share of the £2 billion from the 2015 Treasury allocation for which LEPs can bid, and a share of the £400 million top-slicing of the new homes bonus, which is very controversial with local authorities, which are concerned about the implications of that top-slicing. As LEPs take responsibility for funding streams from several Departments and agencies, it is clear that there will be no effective audit trail to account for how the money will be spent. The truth is that LEPs are not really accountable to anyone.
	In Committee my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods) asked the Minister to set out how he envisages LEPs being audited in future. Given that they are responsible for such significant amounts of public money, and given the pace of change in LEPs across the country, the Minister’s response was simply inadequate. He could make a simple amendment to schedule 2 that would allow us to treat LEPs as a relevant local authority so that not only can we look at the local spend, but we can consider how the national spend will be accounted for as it goes into those LEPs in a way that does not mean having to look at the separate audits of a whole range of different Departments and agencies. If the Minister is not minded to accept our amendment to schedule 2, that could be addressed by simply accepting new clause 1, which would allow integrated audit, because LEPs are precisely the kind of area where integrated audit is much needed. Whether he chooses to accept new clause 1 or the amendment to allow a change to schedule 2—we hope he will accept one of them—we hope that we see a significant change in the confidence that we and the public have in how LEPs work.
	LEPs are a mixture of the public and private sectors, so they are a different kind of organisation. Many public sector bodies are involved in them. For example, there are two LEPs operating across the area I represent, with different types of authorities in a two-tier area, so they are quite complex. Just saying, as the Minister did in Committee, that auditing the money for which LEPs are responsible will be done by that disparate set of audits by component bodies is just not good enough. I strongly urge him to rethink that.

Annette Brooke: I appreciate the general points that the hon. Gentleman is making, but does he agree that the democratic accountability of LEPs needs to be considered at some stage, because in many cases we have one-party representation on the political side?

Andy Sawford: The hon. Lady makes an interesting and important point. I should perhaps declare an interest as an officer of the all-party group on local growth, local enterprise partnerships and enterprise zones. I think the Minister can also claim to have held that auspicious role in the past. The group has been concerned about how we can make sure that LEPs are as effective as possible, principally in regenerating areas and communities and ensuring local growth, but also as regards democracy. LEPs must be accountable to communities, particularly given that they have mixed boards taken from the public and private sectors. In my area—I am not sure about the hon. Lady’s—there are two different types of authorities, and district councils around the country, in particular, have been very concerned about whether they have a powerful enough voice in the governance of LEPs.
	The hon. Lady mentioned political representation on LEPs and their political leanings. A modest change to this Bill would address some of the issues about how LEPs are growing and developing to suggest that they should be audited in an integrated and proper way. That could enable elected local councillors to ask questions of and examine the performance of their LEP so as to enhance the local accountability and democracy that she and I want to see around the country in relation to the growing role of LEPs.
	New clause 2 is about transparency. The independence and transparency of audit is not sufficiently safeguarded by the Bill. We recognise that the Bill has been improved during its passage through Parliament, and that the Government have sought to put in place ways to ensure an element of independence—for example, of local auditors. We had substantial discussion about how we would ensure the independence of members of the audit panels that recommend the appointment of auditors. However, there are significant issues in relation to how local authorities are finding new ways of working, particularly with private sector companies and other suppliers. We want to bring greater transparency to the relationship between local authorities and the private contractors to whom, increasingly, large amounts of public services are being contracted out.
	The new clause is partly inspired by the strong points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) on Second Reading, when he encouraged us to look at the work of Transparency International. I assure him that I read its report on corruption, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson), and used it to raise some important questions in Committee. Indeed, the Minister met representatives of Transparency International, so interested had he become in the strength of its recommendations and the issues that it was throwing up. Transparency International says:
	“Private companies, when operating services in the public interest, should be required to comply with the Freedom of Information Act with regard to those services. Specifically, audit reports from local authorities should be covered under the Freedom of Information Act or published directly as public documents.”
	I agree.
	Our new clause draws on amendments that have been tabled at every stage in the Lords and in Committee. I pay tribute to the work of Lord Wills in this regard. At each stage, the Government have warmed a little more to the arguments that have been made. The Liberal
	Democrats have been encouraging, too. Lord Tope and Lord Wallace of Saltaire spoke in the Lords in favour of greater transparency. Lord Tope said:
	“My Lords, Liberal Democrats campaigned hard for freedom of information long before the Act was passed and have since been consistent and enthusiastic supporters of its provisions. It follows therefore that we start with considerable sympathy for the issue that the noble Lord, Lord Wills, is pursuing…I am grateful to him for pursuing the issue at all stages of the Bill.”
	I hope that he noticed that we took these matters forward in Committee. Lord Wallace of Saltaire said:
	“I encourage the noble Lord to pursue this issue further. I will repeat what I said on Report: both Parliament and the Government need to look at this issue in general.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24 July 2013; Vol. 747, c. 1319-1324.]
	They are both right.
	The Government’s main counter is that transparency increases costs and is not necessary because councils can already be subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000. However, that is not sufficient given the travel towards ever greater outsourcing of services. Local government controls about a quarter of all public spending and contracts out an increasing amount of services to private providers. It is responsible for making decisions about a number of matters where the interests of private companies are often in tension with the wishes of the electorate. For all those reasons, local government is inherently exposed to corruption risks. On the whole, it navigates and mitigates those risks admirably, and we should recognise that and keep in proportion the level of concern. However, the public will want to know that we in this place have done our very best to ensure that there is transparency in how local authorities mitigate the risks and manage contracts.
	Two recent reports by the National Audit Office are very worrying. They warn of a crisis of confidence and highlight the fact that much of the work of central Government is being contracted out to firms such as Serco, with a contract of £1.8 billion; Capita, with a contract of over £1 billion; and companies such as G4S and Atos. We all know from our constituencies some of the problems with Atos, which has contracts approaching £1 billion but is singularly failing to deliver for our constituents. The reports highlight the issues and problems that have emerged in the management of these contracts. In its memorandum, the NAO says:
	“Transparency is needed to ensure that no one within the contractor can hide problems and that it is in the contractor’s commercial interest to focus on their client’s (the government’s) needs”—
	or, indeed, the needs of local government. The Institute for Government says:
	“The current pace and scale of outsourcing outstrips the ability of Whitehall officials to design and manage complex contracts effectively.”
	We know the scale of the contracts that local authorities are negotiating around the country. Some are working successfully but in others there are problems, and the public want to know that there is a measure of real accountability and transparency. Hon. Members will recognise that this is a challenge for local authorities as well as for central Government.
	The new clause aims to bring some transparency to the billions of pounds of public money that are at stake with regard to tackling fraud, corruption, incompetence and inefficiency in terms of citizens’ rights to know about the services provided to them and taxpayers’ rights to know about the services that they pay for. We have all agreed at various stages of our debate that local government and the relevant authorities that are subject to the Bill in schedule 2 are generally bodies that conduct themselves—in their financial probity and their conduct and standards in public office, including that of elected members and boards and their officers—in a manner that we would all want to see. However, we also know about occasions—we have to be honest about them—when those organisations fall short, sometimes wilfully and sometimes because of maladministration or error. We discussed some examples of that and what we can learn from them in Committee.
	The fact that local authorities are covered by the Freedom of Information Act does not always provide the necessary transparency for private sector bodies carrying out public sector work, nor does the right of electors to inspect the accounts and audit documents, important though that is; indeed, it is provided for in a welcome way in the Bill. The Government have argued that the transparency that is intended in these provisions would increase costs, but we would argue that transparency can save money. Some of the work of the Audit Commission has saved billions of pounds of public money. There is evidence from local authorities around the country of how transparency can at times shine a light on areas of public spending that leads to savings to the public purse. I think the Minister would support that general point; indeed, he and his colleagues have talked about armchair auditors.
	We deliberately included the word “significant” in the new clause to make it clear that it is not intended to cover the provision of services by small businesses, nor the work of town and parish councils, as in those cases it might be unnecessarily onerous in terms of cost. That acknowledges the Government’s concern in that respect. It would allow a local auditor
	“a right of access at all reasonable times to audit documents from private companies to whom the local authority has contracted significant services during the last financial year...A local auditor must make available on request any audit documents, obtained under subsection (1), subject to the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.”
	That would clearly make these documents available to the public. We seek to define “private company” in the context of how freedom of information may apply in relation to the process of audit, so that it would mean
	“any legal entity, including joint ventures, not-for-profit organisations, mutually-held organisations and charities.”
	Of course, many more of those bodies are now involved in providing public services.
	To ensure that the Minister understands that we intend to be very reasonable and measured in making this proposal, we have included a sunset clause. I hope that the Government recognise that that means that if the new clause proves to be particularly onerous, or unnecessary, they could at a future time consider whether it is any longer needed.
	Our final amendment in this group, amendment 13, centres on the independence of audit. It is straightforward and I do not intend to detain the House on it for long. It
	is an important principle that independent audit means that companies should not be auditing themselves. As I have said, councils are increasingly outsourcing contracts to the private sector. When a company, be it PricewaterhouseCoopers, Deloitte and Touche, KPMG, Ernst and Young or some other provider—perhaps a smaller firm or even a new entrant to the audit market, as the Government hope will happen—provides services other than audit to a council, it should not then audit those same services. That is a simple but very important principle, because there is clearly a conflict of interest when a firm is auditing itself.
	In Committee we heard assurances that in such circumstances an audit firm would, by virtue of the expectations in the contract with the council and, to some extent, with regard to the codes of professional standards and probity that govern and guide how auditors operate, make sure that a different person or even a different team within the company would carry out the audit so as to bring a measure of independence when looking at areas of spend and operation for which that self-same company is responsible. We listened to those arguments, which were made by a number of hon. Members. We know that auditors already seek to uphold professional standards of conduct and that in the private sector they sometimes need to have different teams when they work with a major company as both an auditor and a supplier.
	We would argue, however, that it is a matter for the shareholders of those private companies to resolve any conflicts of interest. Our focus in this Bill is on arrangements for local and other relevant authorities that are spending billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money and where it is our responsibility to make sure that conflicts or interest are resolved.
	Our amendment does not seek to prevent a company from undertaking audit work when it has other interests in the relevant authority. We recognise that that would go too far and that there are significant issues with regard to what is, in effect, an oligopoly in this market. We do not wish to narrow further the number of firms that could bid to undertake the audit work. Our amendment does say, however, that the audit firm would have to subcontract to another firm any part of its work that relates to the auditing of services that it already provides. Given that the Government envisage some arrangements whereby more than one auditor may be appointed to carry out work, we do not see what the problem is with the amendment. It seems perfectly sensible and I hope they will consider it.
	The Minister has assured us that in many local authorities it will be commonplace for a company to be able to subcontract parts of its audits to different audit firms or to be able to make arrangements in relation to combined authorities where different auditors work together. He has assured us that that is a feasible and, indeed, desirable part of the arrangements as currently envisaged, and we see the amendment as a logical extension of that.
	I welcome the new clauses tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington, who has a strong interest in maximising transparency, which is the focus of his new clause 3. On new clause 4, independent studies have been done on the effect of changes in local authority structure since the Local Government Act 2000. I gently say to my hon. Friend that I would rather leave
	it to local authorities, local residents and interested parties to review their arrangements than ask for central Government’s verdict on what is the most effective structure for local democracy in any given local authority area.
	New clause 5 addresses how local authority capacity has been diminished. I would be very interested to hear the Minister’s response to that, because it is an important point that was raised in Committee. On new clause 6, compromise agreements are a matter of increasing public concern. We sought to raise the issue in Committee, where we tabled amendments that would have meant that compromise agreements could not effectively gag employees. I am sorry that the Government did not accept them.
	On Government amendment 2, I thank the Minister for his letter explaining this minor technical amendment. Government amendment 3 makes sense to us on the cross-border point, notwithstanding the wider policy point about the treatment of internal drainage boards, which we will come to later. Government amendment 4 is a tidying-up amendment.
	Finally, on Government amendment 5, I am very pleased that the Government have responded to the points we made in Committee about recognising the qualifications of auditors. The amendment does not go far enough to address the important issue of auditors needing to understand the scope of public audit, a point that was powerfully made by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy in its representations to us and, indeed, by the draft Bill Committee; nevertheless, I welcome the amendment.

John McDonnell: I wish to speak to new clauses 4 to 6, which stand in my name, and, without wanting to stray from the procedural rules of the House, I may refer to new clause 3, which has not been selected, but I assure you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that it will be a fleeting reference.
	As has been said, on Second Reading I referred to the Transparency International report on the potential for corruption in local government. I circulated the report to all Members in advance of this debate and I am grateful that the Minister took up my suggestion to meet Transparency International and that the report became a subject of debate in Committee.
	I tabled these new clauses to draw attention to some of the issues raised by the Transparency International report and to seek at least an element of forward momentum with regard to addressing these issues in future. It is critical that we maintain the confidence of the general public in the administration of local government. I think that Transparency International has helped us greatly, although its report says that it is very difficult to identify evidence other than anecdotal evidence about the level of corruption that may exist in UK local government. I believe we all share the view that the vast majority of councillors and council officials do an excellent job to a very high standard of probity and efficiency. Nevertheless, we are plagued with anecdotal information about elements of local government and with doubts about corruption.
	Given the lack of data on corruption in local government collected at national level or any other level, Transparency International looks at the systems implemented to make sure that corruption does not take place. Its report says:
	“Here, a disturbing picture emerges, and one on which experts and interviewees”—
	in the study—
	“were agreed. On the one hand, the conditions are present in which corruption is likely to thrive—low levels of transparency, poor external scrutiny, networks of cronyism, reluctance or lack of resource to investigate, outsourcing of public services, significant sums of money at play and perhaps a denial that corruption is an issue at all.”
	My new clauses address those key elements. First, lack of transparency relates to new clause 3, which has not been selected, so I will not dwell on it. On Second Reading, I gave the example of my own local authority—this may happen elsewhere, so I would welcome the views of other Members—regularly putting items in part 2 of its agenda on the basis of spurious commercial confidentiality. When the find of prehistoric flints on one of my sites was reported in part 2 of the agenda, I joked in a previous debate that commercial confidentiality might have been important 3,000 years ago, but it is not now. It is, however, becoming a regular way of stifling debate and of preventing issues from being reported in the local media.
	I believe—this is why I tabled new clause 3—that we need to address that. Central Government need to be clear about how often it is happening in local government and about the scale of its use and whether it is being used appropriately. They also need to address whether they have a role to play in providing further and better guidelines on how part 2 items should be addressed and on how items should be deemed to be commercially confidential or otherwise for the purposes of part 2 of the cabinet system.
	That relates to the overall system. Under the previous Government’s local government reforms, which I opposed, we now have quite a centralised local council system whereby the leader is elected and then appoints the cabinet. They are all on a relatively high income these days. I do not begrudge anyone being paid the rate for the job, but the leader of the council in my area is on £65,000 a year and is appointing other members of the cabinet on salaries of between £45,000 and £55,000 a year. That gives the leader extremely wide-ranging powers of patronage and it is the leader who decides which items go into the confidential part of the cabinet agenda. They do so after being given some advice, about which I also have concerns, which I will come to.
	That centralisation of decision-making is dangerous and has the potential to result in not just poor decision-making and lack of transparency, but corrupt decision-making. That level of centralised control is part of the problem we now have. One of the issues thrown up by Transparency International’s report is that, structurally, we have opened ourselves up to decisions being made by a very limited number of councillors, with limited scrutiny by others. Whatever people thought of the old committee system—to be frank, it might well have been relatively slow at times—it was more open, democratic and transparent.
	That brings me to the second element of my new clauses, which is covered in new clause 4. I am anxious that scrutiny in local government should depend on the
	system of scrutiny committees established by the previous Government, but those committees work only if they are properly resourced and can scrutinise decisions with an element of detailed research and knowledge. In my area, I am fearful that lip service is simply paid to scrutiny. There is not sufficient investment in officers to support such committees, and patronage in relation to them exerts a role in preventing its members from having independence of mind.
	I tabled new clause 4 to suggest that there should be a review by the Secretary of State and a report to this House on how scrutiny is working in local government. My hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Andy Sawford) suggests that that should be left to local government, but that is the problem. In areas such as mine, which is increasingly becoming a one-party state, there is no way to enable a proper independent examination of scrutiny practices or to know whether scrutiny structures are operational. If the Audit Commission is no longer to exist, there does not seem to be any other body, other than the Secretary of State, with the power to instigate an investigation into whether scrutiny is working. I am sure that it works extremely effectively in some areas, but in others it is poor to the point of virtual non-existence. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) is obviously tagged—another form of scrutiny. [Laughter.]
	The new clauses are about transparency and scrutiny, but my new clause 5 relates to Transparency International’s concern about the lack of resource to investigate corruption in individual councils. I am concerned because it is very difficult to find information anywhere about the scale of local authority investment to ensure full probity. For example, with the latest round of cuts in local government, I am anxious about cuts to areas involving the management of accounts and their internal audit in finance departments. Because cuts in staffing have been so large, there is vulnerability in local government in that staff are not available for councillors to be able to ensure proper investigation or to bring to book corrupt elements. The new clause therefore suggests that the Secretary of State should prepare and lay before the House a report on the adequacy of resources and staffing levels, but also on the structures and procedures that individual authorities have put in place to detect and investigate fraud. At the moment, there is fragility in local government in relation to the investigation and detection of fraud.
	My new clause 6 is about compromise agreements. I have asked questions over the past year about the use of such agreements within local government, and the response has been that it is not monitored by the Department for Communities and Local Government and that, therefore, no information is available. We have to go back to anecdote, which is the problem in this debate. As Transparency International has highlighted in its report, the vast majority of council officials leaving in my area do so on the basis of compromise agreements. I do not understand why such agreements are used to ensure that there is a gagging clause to prevent an official from commenting on their local authority’s activities, efficiency and other matters.
	I can understand to a certain extent the use of compromise agreements in the private sector, but their use in the public sector seems to undermine the structures and procedures we put in place for whistleblowing. To cite my own area again, officers seem to disappear time
	and again, particularly after criticising the local authority or individual councillors—their desk is suddenly vacated and they have gone—and we then discover that they have left under a compromise agreement. They do not gain their full benefits until that has been negotiated—often, I have to say, at the door of the tribunal—but a compromise agreement is signed, so they get their pay-off, but they are not allowed to comment on the issues that may well have been what resulted in their leaving the authority. I doubt that that is peculiar to my own local authority, but I think that it flies in the face of openness, transparency and accountability.
	I am simply suggesting that the Secretary of State should investigate what is happening in relation to such matters. It would be helpful to know how frequently compromise agreements are used across local authorities. It would also be useful to know how often confidentiality clauses are incorporated into such agreements and, frankly, why there is any need for them. I can understand their use to a certain extent if there are strict matters of commercial confidentiality involving a contract between a local authority and an individual company, but their use seems to range much further and even to cover any element of criticism of a local authority and its actions.
	My new clauses are an attempt to address the issues raised by Transparency International. I am not making party political points. As I have said, I am criticising structures and systems put in place by the previous Government, but also trends that have accelerated under this Government in recent years. They have increased not localism, but centralism within individual local authorities, and they have produced cuts that have cut the very officers needed to maintain levels of probity and undermined the ability of councillors who are not in the ruling regime or on its back benches to undertake appropriate and effective scrutiny.
	I do not expect the Government to accept my new clauses, but I flag them up as issues that we need to bear in mind. We must send a message to local government that this House has concerns about these matters and that we take Transparency International’s report seriously. I suggest that the Government need—the Minister should take this upon his shoulders—to have a close watching brief on these issues and to engage in a dialogue with local government associations to see whether they have concerns. Local government might be able to make proposals for future reforms to ensure that we address the concerns expressed in Transparency International’s report and the issues that I have raised today.
	If the Government do not do so, perhaps such issues should be referred to the Communities and Local Government Committee for a further report or, failing that, we should do what we have done in other instances and bring together a group of Back Benchers who have had a particular interest in or experience of local government over the years to look at such matters independently and report back to the House. These issues will not go away, but will cause more concern in the public mind, particularly as local decisions are made on controversial cuts that people fail either to support or fully understand. That is why full openness and transparency is needed in local councils about decisions that they make.
	I commend my new clauses to the House, but I will not press any of them to a Division. I hope that this debate will set an agenda—not only for the Minister to
	examine, but at which the House can look at a future date—in relation to whether local government operates effectively and efficiently, but also transparently and openly. It will also demonstrate our concern about corruption, which local government should be willing to address where necessary.

Alex Cunningham: I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in support of new clause 2, which would add a considerable dose of fairness to the Bill. I will concentrate on the need to extend the use of the Freedom of Information Act.
	As we all know, private companies that deliver public services are exempt from the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act. The Information Commissioner has no power to investigate private contractors. He cannot serve information notices to require a contractor to supply information for an investigation, nor can he take enforcement action if a contractor fails to comply with his contractual obligations. Put bluntly, that renders it nigh on impossible for us to get our hands on the details of much of what private companies get up to with public money.
	New clause 2 seeks to correct that oversight, at least in relation to services that are provided to local authorities and health bodies. I hope that, in time, such provisions will be extended to all significant public sector contracts that are placed with organisations outside the public sector, whether they are charities, not-for-profit companies, mutuals or those that make vast profits for their shareholders at the expense of the taxpayer.
	I have been hugely concerned for many years—not just under this Government, but under the previous Government and others before them—that there is a tremendous lack of transparency in the use of public money when it is handed to private companies and other organisations for the delivery of goods and services. Further billions of pounds of public money have been distributed from the public sector into the private sector in every year since the coalition Government came to power, so my anxieties have increased considerably.
	There are good grounds for that anxiety, because many of the vital services, on which we daily rely, have been contracted out to private sector and other providers. The list seems endless, but until now we appear to have been largely content to see taxpayers’ money handed over to private companies for the delivery of services ranging from waste management and highway repair to schools, hospitals, the justice system, early years care and, as we were reminded yesterday, the care of elderly people.
	No public service appears to be safe from the zeal for outsourcing that has been demonstrated by this Government, regardless of whether evidence exists to support such a model of provision. Should Ministers be allowed to further their ambitions to privatise even more services, without the providers being subject to proper scrutiny? I do not think so. If taxpayers’ money is involved, any citizen or Member of Parliament should be able to see the detail of where and how it is being spent. Applying the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act to such circumstances would enable that to happen.
	We must make the best use of taxpayers’ money. I often hear Members from all parts of the House talk about the need to innovate in delivering services and to
	share best practice so that people across the country can reap the benefits. Without the transparency that would be provided by new clause 2, through the Freedom of Information Act, we are destined to see service providers keep their cards close to their chests, protecting their information at the expense of better services across the country. That transparency would also provide us with data on organisations that are prepared to run services at a loss for a period to drive competitors out of the market and then make a killing in the long term when there is no one for them to compete against.
	Although I am the first to acknowledge that the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act can, at times, be cumbersome, I am in no doubt about the greater good that they serve. It is those requirements that allow those who are on the outside looking in—who, let us not forget, consist largely of the taxpayers who fund service provision—to delve into the details and scrutinise the outputs to ensure that they are getting value for money through providers that are fit for purpose. It is also those requirements that allow politicians, the media and other organisations to scrutinise what companies are up to.
	I spoke recently on the Offender Rehabilitation Public Bill Committee about the need for the extension of the Freedom of Information Act to services that are provided to the Ministry of Justice, including the probation services that are on the verge of being privatised. I said that I was offering Government Members an opportunity for the future. Just as they had the right to scrutinise the public sector by pressing for information under the Act after Labour brought it in, they could have any number of fruitful days examining the contracts that are let by the future Labour Government if the provisions are extended to the private sector, as outlined in new clause 2.
	Perhaps I will not convince the Conservatives, who will doubtless plead that commercial confidentiality must be retained in contracts, but the Lib Dems would surely love to have the chance to exploit this new transparency. They will know that, with £100 billion of taxpayers’ money being spent each year on the provision of public services by private and voluntary sector companies, it is essential that such expenditure is evaluated properly and that service providers are held fully to account for their actions. It is a core tenet of our democracy that taxpayers are able to access the information that is necessary to do that thoroughly and vigorously.
	Under this Government, the number of services that are run by the private sector is growing. There is a parallel growth in the size of the democratic deficit. Not only is more taxpayers’ money being entrusted to companies that have limited or no experience of such service provision, as will happen with the probation service, but there is an increase in the number of activities that are undertaken by Departments that are not subject to the Freedom of Information Act. As a result, the number of contracted services that are unaccountable and lacking full scrutiny is increasing. As things stand, private sector companies that are responsible for delivering public services are able to hide behind a cloak of commercial confidentiality.
	Billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money is being awarded to companies under contracts that are barely transparent. We cannot say that often enough. Billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money is being awarded to companies under contracts that are barely transparent. Those same companies are free to exploit the benefits of gaining detailed knowledge of successful public sector bodies through the submission of freedom of information requests. That information can be deployed to undercut, imitate or outbid the very same public sector bodies when contracts are tendered or renewed. That situation leaves private companies in the strongest possible position to exploit such knowledge. More importantly, it enables them to hide what they are doing with large sums of public money.
	Departments are under considerable strain in monitoring their contracts because staff numbers have collapsed under the Government’s cuts. The public therefore deserve the right to do some monitoring of their own. There would be real accountability if the private firms and other organisations that spend those billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money were compelled to answer directly to the public by providing responses to questions about what they are doing.

James Morris: The hon. Gentleman seems to be talking about large private companies. Subsection (4) of new clause 2, to which he is speaking, includes in the definition of a private company
	“joint ventures, not-for-profit organisations, mutually-held organisations and charities.”
	Is he not concerned that the new clause would place large costs on smaller organisations that might not be able to handle the kind of requests he is talking about?

Alex Cunningham: No, I am not. As my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Andy Sawford) said in opening the debate, this proposal relates to substantial contracts. It does not include the smallest organisations and we must ensure that they are protected. However, I would say that such organisations have a responsibility to be accountable for anything that they do when spending public money.
	In the new world, public and private providers will ultimately be responsible for delivering equivalent services, but they will be governed by different rules. If a public partnership wins a contract to deliver refuse services, it will be subject to the freedom of information provisions, but its private sector rivals for future contracts would not be. Why should that be so? Private contractors that provide services should undoubtedly be held to the same standards of responsibility as state providers. I do not believe that anyone can argue to the contrary. It is therefore logical that the right to information about their regimes and establishments should also be equivalent.
	So that there is no mistake, I remind Members that in announcing measures in 2011 to allow the publication of further spending and performance data on public services, the Prime Minister spoke of the “power of transparency”. Indeed, he went on to assert that, “Information is power.” He even suggested that
	“we need more of it.”
	I know that this is unusual, but I agree with the Prime Minister that we need more of it.
	To put it simply, many non-public sector providers shelter themselves from open scrutiny and operate behind a screen of secrecy that simply is not compatible with the principles of public service provision. Such stealth and secrecy cannot be allowed to continue. It is only right that as more and more public services that were once the sole preserve of local and national Government are contracted out beyond the public sector, steps are taken to ensure that the same access arrangements are required of private and voluntary sector providers. To do otherwise is unfairly to insulate the Government, the Department and favoured contractors from adequate scrutiny and accountability.
	One of the major risk factors that flow from a position of secrecy is the potential for fraud and corruption. Other Members have addressed that point in more detail. In public service provision, that is a crime against each and every taxpayer, and the public should be granted protection against such transgressions by all providers of public services being made subject to the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act. We have already seen the failures of some companies that were happy to take the taxpayers’ billions, and some people may face legal action as a result. For such reasons, we cannot afford to overlook the importance of new clause 2. Its additional safeguards are particularly important given the Government’s recent poor track record on commissioning services.
	I know that the Government will bang on about commercial sensitivity, but that is nonsense. This is about fairness, open government and, above all, trust. For those reasons, I fully support new clause 2.

Chris Williamson: I rise to support the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Andy Sawford), on new clauses 1 and 2. To some extent, we rehearsed the arguments in Committee, when the matter was considered in some detail. The Minister and his colleagues were singularly unconvincing in their opposition to our proposals, but I hope that, having had time to reflect on those discussions and the contributions of my hon. Friends today, the Minister will accept our reasonable new clauses.
	On new clause 1, considerable amounts of local and national funding are now used jointly. It therefore seems appropriate that they are subject to proper scrutiny and auditing arrangements. To argue against that is unacceptable. It is incumbent on the Government to ensure that funding is subject to proper scrutiny after deployment, particularly at a time when significant austerity and swingeing funding cuts have been imposed on public services, especially local government. They must ensure that we get the maximum benefit for the public pound in communities up and down the country. I hope the Minister will concede that the arguments that have been made are persuasive, and I hope that the Government will respond accordingly.
	On new clause 2, it seems appropriate that proper measures are put in place to ensure that we do not end up with a cosy relationship between auditors and local authorities. There is a real danger of that, particularly as the Audit Commission is to be abolished. There could be significantly increased opportunities for corruption and the misuse of public funds. We could find situations such as the infamous “homes for votes” scandal involving Westminster council and Shirley Porter—or maybe we
	would not find out about them. Without new clause 2, they would be more difficult to uncover, so there might be more such examples around the country, which would be extremely regrettable.
	In the case of that Conservative-controlled council in Westminster, we saw more than just the “homes for votes” scandal. We know from the records of officers who were employed there at the time that the council leader, Shirley Porter, bullied officers, and that anybody who had the temerity to question her direction of travel was slapped down in no uncertain terms. They were told, “You’re not one of us”, or “You are a negative officer and you need to decide which side you are on.” That was totally unacceptable behaviour by the leader of a council, and I fear that such behaviour is likely to increase if new clause 2 is not accepted.
	As I said, it was not just the “homes for votes” scandal. Shirley Porter rose to notoriety when she sold three cemeteries in London for redevelopment for 5p each—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. As interesting as this may be, we are discussing audit. I know that the subject of Dame Shirley Porter may create some interest, but we have to try to stick to the new clauses and amendments. We are drifting a little wide of them. I am sure the hon. Gentleman is desperate to get back on track.

Chris Williamson: Indeed I am, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I am grateful for your guidance. I was just about to conclude my remarks about Shirley Porter by saying that she privatised at will, as well.
	In Committee, we heard a lot from the Minister about his commitment to transparency. His Back-Bench colleagues reinforced that point. However, the Bill will make transparency considerably more difficult, because arrangements within local authorities will be considerably more opaque. Transparency International, which my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) quoted, was scathing about the Bill, stating:
	“The range of measures outlined in this Bill, combined with recent legislative reforms under the Localism Act 2011, remove key institutional defences against corruption, replacing them with arrangements that are likely to be inadequate to protect the public interest and the public purse.”
	We hear a lot from the Government about their concerns for the public purse and the need to ensure that the taxpayer gets value for money, yet it seems that, unless they accept our new clauses, they are being cavalier with the public purse in this case.
	I hope that the Minister will reflect on what has been said today. Unless the new auditing arrangements are subject to freedom of information provisions, their opacity will grow. I do not want to strain your patience too much, Mr Deputy Speaker, but circumstances such as the Shirley Porter case will not be uncovered. It is essential that new clause 2, tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Corby and for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham), is accepted; otherwise private sector audit companies will not be subject to the scrutiny that was previously available under the Audit Commission arrangements. Even when there were external auditors, the information that they held was deemed to be held by the Audit Commission and was therefore subject to
	scrutiny by the general public. My hon. Friends and I say that it is important that proper scrutiny is still available under the new arrangements. As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Corby, local enterprise partnerships are now also spending considerable sums of money.

James Morris: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify the meaning of proposed subsection (1) of new clause 2? It states:
	“A local auditor has a right of access at all reasonable times to audit documents from private companies to whom the local authority has contracted significant services during the last financial year.”
	Does that mean that a local auditor should have the right to access any and all documents within such companies irrespective of whether they are relevant to the relationship with the local authority? That would give the local auditor carte blanche to access any document at all in those organisations.

Chris Williamson: It means documents relating to the contracts under which companies are working for the local authority. Clearly, it would be overly burdensome and inappropriate for all their documentation to be subject to the Freedom of Information Act, but it is perfectly reasonable in respect of work they are doing on behalf of a local authority, as is made clear later in the new clause. The hon. Gentleman’s concerns are misplaced, and the new clause is entirely reasonable.

Andy Sawford: My hon. Friend is right in his interpretation of the new clause. Clause 26 on the inspection of documents sets out the documents that would reasonably be made available for inspection in public bodies. We would extend that to private sector contractors.

Chris Williamson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that clarification. I hope that provides the reassurance Government Members were seeking.
	In conclusion, we are moving to a new era in which the Audit Commission will be abolished and more private sector auditors will get involved in the market. It is important that those are subject to appropriate scrutiny, and we must therefore ensure that instruments are available to enable such scrutiny to take place. According to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, up to £20 billion will be spent by local enterprise partnerships, and proper scrutiny and auditing arrangements must be in place to ensure that that money is expended properly. The public demand nothing less, and if the Government do not support this measure it is incumbent on them to explain how that scrutiny will take place. If scandals are uncovered in the future because of a lackadaisical approach adopted by the Government, they will not be able to say they were not warned. I hope the Minister will sleep easy in his bed if he rejects these reasonable measures, because I believe that would put taxpayers’ money at risk of being misused. He needs to reassure the House and—more importantly—the wider public.

Brandon Lewis: I will respond first to the new clauses tabled by the hon. Member for Corby (Andy Sawford) before addressing those tabled by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). I will then consider the Government amendments in this group.
	New clauses 1 and 2 and amendments 13 and 12 cover familiar ground which, as the hon. Member for Corby noted, we debated at some length in Committee. New clause 1 returns to the issue of integrated audit and seeks to enable auditors to work across local authorities with the National Audit Office. I support the principle of audits being undertaken efficiently and effectively, but I do not consider that the new clauses are the right approach, or that they are necessary to support bodies in working jointly or sharing services or budgets.
	The public audit framework is designed to provide assurance about how each public body has used its resources. Individual public bodies are separately accountable, and because each is accountable for its decisions and expenditure, every one is required to produce a set of accounts and have an independent audit. I do not believe that the current accountability structure prevents local auditors from auditing relevant authorities cost effectively, or that it prevents authorities from working together to share services or budgets. The requirement to have a separate audit has not been highlighted as a problem in the four areas with which the Government have been working to explore service transformation and joint working via a community budget. Neither did the Public Accounts Committee raise external audit as a barrier in its report on integrated working by Government Departments and via community budgets.
	Auditors are already required by the code of audit practice to have regard to partnership working that local government and health service bodies operate, to share information and co-operate with other auditors, and to minimise the burden of regulation on audited bodies. The Financial Reporting Council’s auditing standards also state that auditors should rely on the work of other auditors where appropriate, and guidance is available to support auditors making that judgment.
	The National Audit Office supports Parliament to hold Government Departments to account. It does not have a role in auditing expenditure by local public bodies, and it does not wish to have one. The NAO already carries out a number of national value-for-money examinations under existing legislation, and the Bill broadens its powers to enable it to examine all or groups of relevant authorities. That will enable a more end-to-end view on the use of public money. It will not enable the NAO to undertake examinations of individual authorities, but it will be able to look at any thematic or systemic issues across a number of relevant authorities. For those reasons, we consider that the new clause is not needed.
	There has been a lot of discussion about provisions in new clause 2, both in the other place and in Committee. As I said in Committee, we believe the new clause is not necessary to enable auditors to access all the information they need because the Bill already does that. Clause 22 mirrors the provision in the Audit Commission Act 1998, and enables auditors to access every document they need in order to undertake their statutory functions.
	That includes all documents held by local authority contractors which the auditor considers necessary to undertake an audit.
	The Government also believe that it is not necessary to apply the Freedom of Information Act to documents an auditor has obtained from a contractor. Rather than extending that Act to documents an auditor has obtained from a contractor, the Government’s preferred approach is through the transparency agenda, existing rights of local people, and our planned revision to the freedom of information code of guidance. Local people can already access information about contracts. The Bill maintains local people’s current extensive rights to inspect detailed accounts, accounting records and audit information, and to ask the auditor questions and raise objections. Those rights enable local people to access more information than the proposed new clause would enable.

Chris Williamson: Does the Minister agree that perception is important, and that by not subjecting private sector auditors to the Freedom of Information Act, the wider general public could feel that they will not be able to access information that was previously available under the Audit Commission? Does the Minister believe he has an obligation to be seen to be doing the right thing, as well as giving those assurances at the Dispatch Box?

Brandon Lewis: What is important—I think this is what the hon. Gentleman was trying to say in a roundabout way—is to do the right thing, not what might look like the right thing but may not be. Local authorities are subject to the Freedom of Information Act, but I will continue my remarks so that he fully understands the point about how people can get to information.
	It is absolutely right that the Government are driving forward the transparency agenda so that auditors have access to the information they want. That is why it is important that if people ask questions, the auditor may gather even more documentation to investigate the issues. That goes further than the Freedom of Information Act, which would require the auditor to provide information it holds but not lead it to seek additional material.
	Last week, the Government published their response to the consultation on the transparency code. It set out their intention to make regulations requiring local authorities to publish specified pieces of information, including contract details exceeding £5,000. Local authorities also monitor the delivery of their contracts and are subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The Government consider that a better approach would be for contracts to include provisions that require contractors to assist local authorities in meeting their Freedom of Information Act obligations—thereby satisfying the point raised by the hon. Gentleman. That decision was taken following the Justice Committee’s post-legislative scrutiny of the Freedom of Information Act, which recommended that greater transparency through contracts would provide a more practical approach than extending that Act to companies directly.

Clive Betts: I have heard what the Minister has said about transparency of contracts, but is he saying that if a local authority goes about formulating a contract in the right way, the public—it is they who are important—could be entitled
	to as much information about the spending of their money through a contracting process as they would be if the service was delivered by a local authority directly?

Brandon Lewis: It is not for me to prejudge a contract that a local authority might agree to, but it is true that people can access the Freedom of Information Act through the local authority, and the auditor can go further in its inquiries to ensure it has all the documents it needs.

Clive Betts: That has not answered my question—I was not asking what local authorities should do. If a local authority went about this correctly and formulated a contract correctly, could the public have as much information on the spending of their money through a contracting process as they could if the service were delivered directly by the local authority?

Brandon Lewis: In principle, yes, but it is not for me to prejudge how a local authority would contract. If it chose to contract in that way, of course that would be a matter for it. It would be entirely possible.

Chris Williamson: That response is instructive. I think the Minister is saying that in certain circumstances that information will not be available in the way it is currently available. It seems it will be down to the local authority. He said he met with Transparency International. I wonder if he would comment on its key recommendation:
	“Amendment should be made to the Bill to ensure that the work conducted by auditors will be subject to the Freedom of Information Act, and that auditors will be allowed to access documents from significant private contractors that a local authority has used.”

Hon. Members: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Interventions need to be shorter, but I certainly do not need instruction from Back Benchers.

Brandon Lewis: As I said, the Freedom of Information Act applies to local authorities, but we are not extending it to cover private companies. I am happy categorically to make the point, as I did in Committee, as the hon. Gentleman will see if he looks in Hansard, that we are not going to extend the provision to private companies; it is the local authority that will be accountable. He will have to take that as outlined.
	We will issue a revised code of practice encouraging public authorities to include and enforce provisions in contracts to ensure that openness and accountability are maintained by encouraging the release of a wider range of information about contract delivery. This approach will be monitored by the Government and the Information Commissioner. If contractors or public authorities do not comply with this guidance, the Government will consider what other mechanisms might be necessary, including the possible extension of the Freedom of Information Act to service providers.

Clive Betts: On a point of clarification, will the guidance apply to subcontractors as well as contractors? In practice, many contracts are effectively delivered by the subcontractors as well as the main contractors.

Brandon Lewis: I will not prejudge the guidance before we publish it, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, if he is not happy with what we do, will want to raise it with me at Question Time or through the Select Committee.
	Following our debate on amendment 13 in Committee, I wrote to the hon. Member for Corby providing further details. I can assure the House that this amendment is not necessary, as sufficient safeguards are already, and will continue to be, in place to ensure the independence of the auditor. First, the Financial Reporting Council’s ethical standards require audit firms to establish policies and procedures to ensure that auditors act with integrity, objectivity and independence. There are specific limitations on audit firms providing non-audit services.
	The ethical standards require the lead auditor to assess any threats to the auditor’s objectivity. Before accepting an engagement to provide non-audit services, it must consider whether doing so could threaten the firm’s actual or perceived objectivity or independence. The ethical standards do not prohibit audit firms from undertaking non-audit work, but they do require them to introduce safeguards that would eliminate these threats or reduce them to an acceptable level. This is where a reasonable and informed third party would probably not conclude that an auditor’s objectivity was or could be impaired. If the firm cannot introduce sufficient safeguards to reduce the threats to an acceptable level, it must not accept the non-audit engagement or it must withdraw from the audit.
	Secondly, auditors must comply with international standards setting out the ethical requirements for financial statements audits and requiring lead auditors to report on compliance with independence requirements and audit firms to ensure that their quality control systems comply with professional standards and regulatory and ethical requirements. The international standards also require firms to put in place procedures for the acceptance and continuance of specific engagements, including whether compliance with ethical requirements can be achieved.
	Thirdly, recognised supervisory bodies will have rules to ensure that local auditors conduct work properly and with integrity and that they do not accept appointments where a conflict of interest would prevent that. They must record threats to independence and the steps taken to safeguard independence and ensure that remuneration is not influenced by the local auditor providing other services. That is consistent with the established framework in the companies sector. In addition, we expect the independent auditor panels to advise the authority on the adoption and content of a policy on awarding non-audit work to the auditor. A note to the annual accounts is required if the audit firm undertakes non-audit work.
	Those safeguards will protect the actual and perceived independence and integrity of the auditor. If objectivity is prejudiced, the firm must withdraw from either the audit or the non-audit work. We consider this approach preferable to the amendment tabled, which would not remove the potential conflict of interest. If the audit firm were required to subcontract to another firm, it would still be accountable for the audit opinion and any other work undertaken by the subcontractors.
	Amendment 12 would add local enterprise partnerships to schedule 2 and make them subject to the local audit provisions. I will begin by repeating the assurance, which I gave in Committee, that any public funds channelled through LEPs will be subject to appropriate scrutiny. LEPs are voluntary strategic partnerships, not statutory public bodies. Each has a lead local authority that acts as the accountable body for public funding, and it is this local authority that provides the appropriate financial accountability, including through an annual external audit.
	Making LEPs subject to public audit themselves would simply duplicate existing audit arrangements through which lead local authorities act as accountable bodies. The recent report from the all-party group on local growth, local enterprise partnerships and enterprise zones, of which, as the hon. Member for Corby said, I was the first chair, stated that
	“many participants recognised the role of the accountable body arrangement in providing the necessary financial accountability for public money outside the LEP organisation, freeing the LEP up to focus on strategy and delivery”.
	The amendment would simply add unnecessary burdens to LEPs, while doing little to improve accountability. With these explanations and assurances, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel able not to press new clauses 1 and 2 and amendments 12 and 13 to a vote.
	On the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington, new clause 4 would require the Secretary of State to provide each House of Parliament with a report on the effectiveness, efficiency and economy of structures and procedures that local authorities put in place for reviewing decisions or actions taken by their executive cabinets under section 21 of the Local Government Act 2000. Section 21 requires local authorities operating executive arrangements to appoint at least one overview and scrutiny committee. The role of such a committee is to review and scrutinise decisions and actions of the executive or the council and make reports or recommendations to the council or executive.
	Such committees may also undertake reviews and make recommendations to the council on any matter affecting the local authority area or its inhabitants. Overview and scrutiny is thus important in holding the executive to account for its decisions and actions and plays a vital role in the development of policy, but councils are accountable to their local electorates. It is their responsibility to ensure that their scrutiny arrangements are effective, and they must account for this to their local people, ultimately—like us all—through the ballot box. The provisions in the Bill that enable regulations to make it clear that people can film meetings and blog or tweet about what their elected representatives are saying in meetings are all part of reinforcing local accountability and making it more effective.
	The Government believe in localism—that power should be passed down to local people to hold their councils to account. Local authorities should not have to spend their time reporting to central Government, only for the latter to lay some report before Parliament. That is turning accountability completely on its head. The Bill’s provisions are all about strengthening local accountability, making it more effective and bringing it into the 21st century. These amendments would take us
	in a different direction and are wrong in principle as they would create a wholly unnecessary and inappropriate arrangement.
	For example, new clause 5 would require the Secretary of State to prepare and lay before Parliament a report on the adequacy of the resources, staffing, structures and procedures put in place by authorities to detect and investigate fraud within the authority, before the Audit Commission is abolished. We agree that tackling fraud should be a priority, not only for central Government, but for local authorities and all public bodies. We are clear that local government needs to deal with the £2.1 billion a year of fraud that occurs largely through housing tenancy, payroll, procurement and council tax discounts fraud. “Fighting Fraud Locally: the Local Government Fraud Strategy” was published in 2011. Developed by local government for local government, it provides a blueprint to reduce the risk of fraud, realise cash savings and work together to prevent future fraud losses. To support local authorities in taking this work to the next level, we have just announced £16.6 million of new investment over the next two years. We have also committed to working urgently with local government to ensure that it has the right powers, incentives, data and capacity to tackle fraud effectively.
	The Audit Commission’s work has clearly been an instrumental part of the counter-fraud landscape. Of primary importance is the national fraud initiative which, since it began in 1996, has helped to identify over £1 billion potentially lost to fraud, error and overpayment in the UK. During the earlier stages of the Bill, we announced that the initiative and associated data-matching powers would transfer to the Cabinet Office, and my officials are working with the Cabinet Office to ensure a smooth transition of that important function.
	In addition, the Audit Commission has developed a set of counter-fraud tools, including “Protecting the Public Purse”, the annual fraud survey and the changing organisational cultures toolkit. We are working with the commission and others to determine the future of the tools that matter to local government, so please let me reassure hon. Members that we are progressing this issue with rigour and pace. I would be happy to keep hon. Members informed of progress in this area.

John McDonnell: I am grateful to the Minister for that information and for his offer of co-operation. Does he have figures for the number of staff employed to investigate fraud in local government in, say, 2007-08 compared with the number employed in that area during the past year?

Brandon Lewis: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman those figures off the top of my head, but I will come back to him on that if he will bear with me.
	New clause 6 would require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on the use by local authorities of compromise agreements that involve confidentiality clauses in relation to staff exiting their organisation. I know that the hon. Gentleman feels strongly about this issue and that he raised it on Second Reading. During that debate, he expressed concern that, if used inappropriately, confidentiality clauses could unreasonably restrict officers’ ability to provide full and frank advice to local members and to protect the public interest. Officers, including those exiting an organisation, must
	have proper opportunities to provide such advice and to raise concerns. The Secretary of State has made clear his view that so-called gagging clauses should not be used to undermine that principle, and I am happy to reiterate that view today.
	The use of compromise agreements in the public sector was recently the subject of a report by the National Audit Office and was also scrutinised by the Public Accounts Committee. Further to this, the Government agreed that there should be greater transparency and accountability on the use of compromise agreements across the whole of the public sector, including local authorities. Importantly, the law is quite clear that compromise agreements—in which an agreement is reached to contract out of statutory employment rights—can be made only when the employee has had access to independent advice on the terms and effect of the proposed agreement.
	Furthermore, confidentiality clauses cannot be used to prevent a protected disclosure under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998. The Government have recently undertaken a call for evidence to look at whistleblowing, and specifically at whether there is enough support for people who wish to report wrongdoing. The Government will respond to the call for evidence early in the new year. I hope that I have been able to reassure the House that the Government take this matter seriously and are taking action on it.

John McDonnell: I am grateful for that information, but may I suggest that that review of whistleblowing should pay specific attention to the use of compromise agreements, particularly within local government? I do not think that that has been explored or taken into account sufficiently so far.

Brandon Lewis: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, and he will appreciate that it is now noted and on record. I hope that I have been able to provide sufficient assurances to persuade him not to press his new clauses and amendments to a vote.
	I shall not detain the House for long on Government amendments 1 to 5. Amendment 1 would require an authority to include the period of the auditor’s appointment in the public notice confirming the appointment of the auditor. Clause 8 requires authorities to publish such a notice within 28 days of making the appointment. The hon. Member for Corby will recall that he tabled a similar amendment in Committee and suggested that it would be helpful for the public to know the term of the auditor’s appointment. It was also suggested that knowing when the existing contract would end would be useful to potential bidders for any new appointment.
	There was a similar discussion in the other place, where Lord McKenzie tabled an amendment to require that information on the term of appointment should be included in the published notice. At the time, the Government expressed sympathy with the intentions of the amendment, but questioned whether such a requirement needed to be set out in legislation, because it could simply be a matter of good practice and guidance. However, having considered the case further, and in the light of the points made by the hon. Member for Corby in Committee, the Government accept that it might be useful to put the matter beyond doubt through this amendment.
	Amendment 2 is a minor and technical amendment to ensure that references throughout the Bill cover subordinate legislation made under part 42 of the Companies Act 2006, as applied by schedule 5 to the Bill. It will make it clear that provisions on eligibility and regulation apply to the whole local audit regime.
	Amendment 3 removes from schedule 2 internal drainage boards that are partly in England and partly in Wales. There are two such boards: Powysland and Lower Wye. Both are mainly in Wales but currently fall under the Audit Commission regime. The local audit provisions in the Bill will therefore not apply to those cross-border internal drainage boards after the Audit Commission is abolished. The Welsh Government intend to transfer the functions of the two cross-border IDBs, along with the functions of one IDB that is wholly in Wales, to a single body, Natural Resources Wales, and to bring them under the Welsh audit system. They intend to do this by the time the Audit Commission is abolished—by April 2015. Both bodies will continue to fall under the Audit Commission regime until then.
	The Welsh Government supported a legislative consent motion to make audit arrangements for the two bodies under the Bill as a stopgap measure until the new governance arrangements are in place. However, the legislative consent motion was not passed by the National Assembly for Wales. As a result, in line with the devolution settlement, the amendment removes these two bodies from schedule 2. Welsh Ministers have agreed that we should retain the power in clause 2 as a backstop power to add cross-border bodies back into schedule 2 by regulations at a later date, should the transfer of functions take longer than expected. Regulations made under this power will be subject to consultation and the affirmative procedure, and would require consent from the National Assembly for Wales.
	Amendment 4 is a minor amendment to clarify that paragraph 6(1) of schedule 4 does not apply in the case of health bodies. The paragraph currently provides that, when an authority uses an existing committee as its auditor panel, wider enactments that usually apply to committees of a local authority do not apply. A corresponding power in paragraph 5 then allows such enactments to be positively applied to the panel, to ensure that arrangements remain proportionate, given the panel’s limited role.
	In the case of health bodies, however, their audit committees are covered by a specific existing framework, which is different from that applied to local authority committees. That framework reflects the different governance framework for health bodies such as clinical commissioning groups, and will need to continue to apply in full, even when the committee is acting as the panel. As drafted, paragraph 6 of schedule 4 could have the unintended consequence of disapplying that existing framework for audit committees within health bodies when they are acting as the auditor panel. The amendment therefore excludes health bodies from this provision.
	Amendment 5 further modifies schedule 10 to the Companies Act 2006, as applied by schedule 5, in respect of auditors qualified in other European economic area countries. It has two main effects in respect of those individuals. First, it will enable the recognised supervisory bodies for local audit to recognise the
	qualifications of those auditors who hold the equivalent of a UK local audit qualification obtained elsewhere in the EEA. This is necessary to comply with the requirements of the recognition of professional qualifications directive, 2005/36/EC.
	Secondly, the amendment specifies that recognised supervisory bodies can require an EEA statutory auditor to pass an aptitude test only if the auditor is seeking to become established as a local auditor in the UK on a permanent basis. The audit directive, which makes provision for an aptitude test, applies only to statutory audit. Unlike the audit directive, however, the recognition of professional qualifications directive does not permit the imposition of an aptitude test if an individual is seeking to provide services on a temporary and occasional basis. The amendment therefore seeks to align the regulatory frameworks for statutory and local auditors, as far as is permitted.
	The amendment will also ensure that any indirect discrimination against EEA auditors is avoided and that the requirements for EEA local auditors and EEA statutory auditors are as consistent as possible. It will also ensure that a firm is qualified if it is eligible for appointment as a local or statutory auditor or is eligible for a corresponding appointment. I urge the House to support the Government’s amendments.

Andy Sawford: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me a moment to reply.
	The amendments, particularly new clause 2, have had strong support from my hon. Friends and I am grateful to them for putting their views on record. I welcome the Minister’s statement that the Government will publish guidance to private sector contractors. He went further, saying that if that is not effective, the Government will consider extending freedom of information contracts to private suppliers. I consider that to be a significant move forward, certainly from where we were in Committee. It is a win for my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) and others who have championed this. We very much look forward to seeing that guidance, but we also commit to taking the issue forward ourselves.
	In relation to integrated audit, I believe that the Minister—whether intentionally or not—has sought to misrepresent what our amendment would do in practice. We have not said that the National Audit Office should audit local government, for example. We have simply said that we should work together in audit. We have also not said that the absence of integrated audit is in itself a barrier to taking forward community budgets; rather that it will be an enabler and a complementary approach as we take forward community budgets around the country.
	I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
	Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 8
	 — 
	Procedure for appointment

Amendment made: 1,page6,line43, at end insert—
	‘(ba) specifies the period for which the local auditor has been appointed,’.—(Brandon Lewis.)

Clause 39
	 — 
	Code of practice on local authority publicity

Andy Sawford: I beg to move amendment 14,page26, line11, leave out
	‘one or more specified local authorities’
	and insert ‘a local authority’.

Dawn Primarolo: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	Amendment 15,page26,line25, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
	‘(4) A direction can only be made by the Secretary of State if—
	(a) evidence of a breach of a code has been published by the Secretary of State to the local authority;
	(b) a local authority, on receipt of a letter from the Secretary of State notifying them of evidence which purports to demonstrate a breach of the code has made a response to the Secretary of State within 28 days; and
	(c) upon receiving any response the Secretary of State has published a report detailing his conclusions.’.
	Amendment 16,page27, leave out lines 1 to 29.

Andy Sawford: Clause 39, to which the three amendments relate, includes provisions on local authority publicity that the Opposition strongly believe, and have consistently argued, are unnecessary undemocratic and wholly disproportionate. The amendment, and the clause itself, cover all council publicity; from newspapers to posters and even social media. We are gravely concerned that the Secretary of State is, in effect, through clause 39 making himself the censor-in-chief of local government communications.
	Much attention has been paid to the Government’s gagging law, which attempts to silence civil society. It is less widely known that, through clause 39, the Government are trying to silence elected local councils. These new powers make the Secretary of State censor-in-chief of local government at the same time as evidence is emerging that his Department is encouraging councils to print pro-Government propaganda through the circulation of the very loaded pro-Government suggestive press releases that we have seen appear around the country.
	Clause 39 will give the Secretary of State the power to dictate when and how councils can publish communications to local citizens. Of even more concern to us is the fact that the Secretary of State is taking a power of censorship to direct what issues and information councils can talk about and even what language and phraseology they can use. Ministers have made it clear that their intention is to prevent councils from sharing information or commenting on the impact of Government policy if they disapprove of the message.
	In Committee, the examples given by the Minister and his Back Benchers included not allowing elected leaders of a local authority to publish a comment on the effect of central Government funding changes—so furious are the Government that councils are letting their residents know the scale of the cuts they are facing. Under these new powers, the Secretary of State could force councils to use pro-government terminology such as the benign-sounding “spare room subsidy” rather than the “bedroom tax”, which betrays how unpopular and unfair the policy is to many of the
	poorest and most vulnerable people—including many disabled people—in our communities. Legal advice to the Local Government Association says that these censorship laws would prevent councils from publishing information on issues such as HS2 or health service reconfigurations.
	The Government argue that the power is needed because local authorities are breaching the current voluntary code on local authority publicity. Yet they have managed to find only one example of a breach; Tower Hamlets’ publication “East End Life”, which seems to the Opposition clearly to flout the code. It is absolutely shocking that the Government have failed to take any action, using the powers they already have, in more than three years since they became aware of the level of concern, including that reported by Labour councillors in Tower Hamlets. We agree with the Secretary of State that that publication is a problem, but we ask again why the Government have taken no action—no action at all. In fact, the Minister attempted to explain to me in an answer to a parliamentary question that it is because the Secretary of State has not done anything that he now believes that he needs to give himself these dictatorial powers. It is so extraordinary that one might assume that if councils knew the full extent of these plans, they would resist them.
	Through several freedom of information requests, I discovered that the Department has not communicated with local authorities about the plans since May 2010. No councils have answered letters or e-mails in respect of their local publications on this subject. This is all being done behind local authorities’ backs.
	At the same time as the Secretary of State is censoring councils and preventing them from saying things he does not like, he is seeking to use them as a propaganda arm of the central state. I have discovered that, through these press releases, the Government are seeking to trumpet their policies when it suits them to use councils in that way at the same time as they seek to silence them when council communications are inconvenient. The Secretary of State preaches localism rhetoric, but the truth is—we know this, and local government knows it, too—that he does not really like local democracy. Starved of funds and subject to diktats even on issues like when to collect the bins, local authorities are now subject to censorship. It is clear that the Secretary of State’s warnings of cigar-chomping commies looking to take over government were remarkably prescient.
	The hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke), who I see in her place, described these censorship laws as
	“a sledgehammer to crack a nut”.—[Official Report, 28 October 2013; Vol. 569, c. 704.]
	Liberal Democrat-run Cambridge city council says that the clause is “disproportionate and unnecessary”. It says it is
	“quite at odds with the principles of localism”.
	I asked the Secretary of State in a parliamentary question of 16 December to publish or place in the Library all the responses his Department received to the consultation it ran on local media. The Minister replied:
	“I have placed in the Library of the House, a copy of the Government’s response to the consultation on ‘Protecting the Independent Press…’ which outlines the divergent views of councils and representatives of independent newspapers.”—[Official Report, 16 December 2013; Vol. 572, c. 444W.]
	Because the Minister would not provide the information, I took the trouble of making a freedom of information request to local authorities themselves about their responses to the consultation on the publicity code. I then discovered that it was not only Cambridge city council that said it disagreed with the clause. Watford borough council, led by the widely respected elected local mayor, Dorothy Thornhill—she is not of my party, but she is someone I have worked with who has a good reputation around local government—says:
	“These changes are a threat to local democracy. They could inhibit local elected members from representing their residents. Placing the ultimate decision-making powers in the hands of a Secretary of State is contrary to the localist agenda of the Government, and it is heavy-handed.”
	It is not just Liberal Democrat councils either, because Conservative councils, too, are opposed. North Yorkshire county council says in its response:
	“The proposed legislation is disproportionate”.
	Tory-run North Somerset says:
	“With regard to the proposed restrictions on the publication of council newspapers, we object strongly.”
	Baroness Eaton said in the other place:
	“This clause is unnecessary as there is no evidence that council publications are competing unfairly with local newspapers…the proposed measures in the Bill centralise powers to the Secretary of State and allow central government to interfere with matters that should rightly be decided at local level”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 May 2013; Vol. 745, c. 902.]
	Lord Tope, commenting on the lack of evidence to support the proposals on local authority publicity said:
	“All we have had from the Government is rather silly and misleading statements from the Secretary of State about ‘town hall Pravdas’”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 May 2013; Vol. 745, c. 898.]
	The Local Government Association, a cross-party but Conservative-led body, says:
	“The powers are too wide ranging and do not allow councils any local discretion about how to engage with their residents. This is unnecessary and could allow the Secretary of State to interfere with the work of an elected council.”
	The National Association of Local Councils, which has no political axe to grind, says these powers are “anti-localist”, fly in the face of localism and are
	“a threat to local democratic accountability”.
	Finally, let me cite the very considered words of the right hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Sir Andrew Stunell), the former Local Government Minister in the coalition Government. In Committee he said:
	“Every Bill has high spots and not-so-high spots, and Clause 39 is one of those not-so-high spots.”––[Official Report, Local Audit and Accountability Public Bill Committee, 19 November 2013; c. 301.]
	I have had the pleasure of working with the right hon. Gentleman in a previous role so I know that that is a typically understated remark from him. He then went on to challenge the Minister for assurances about the proportionality of any intervention, and the ability of councils to make representations with regard to how they are exercising discretion. However, far from giving reassurances, the Minister—and many of his hon. Friends, some of whom I see in the Chamber today—made us more rather than less concerned. Their political motivation was absolutely clear: they were frankly shameless about
	revealing that clause 39 was about silencing councils if they communicated with citizens about anything that the Government did not like.
	The Secretary of State claims that the clause is needed to protect the press from unfair competition from advertising, but the recommended code of practice for local authority publicity contains no provisions relating to advertising. It is clear that the Secretary of State’s argument is a diversion from the real aim of censoring councils and their locally elected councillors. The National Union of Journalists disagrees with the Government’s contention that local authority publications are damaging to the press. Its general secretary has said that there is “no case at all” for the current Secretary of State
	“and future Secretaries of State to be given extra statutory powers to decide when”
	and how local authorities can communicate, adding:
	“We do not believe that this element of guidance reflects the needs of many communities”.
	The Minister will no doubt tell us that the Government ran a consultation in April 2013. That consultation was a classic example of things that cause the public at times to be very sceptical abut public sector consultations. It was, in fact, very much a “nonsultation”. Its outcome was so evidently predetermined, even by the loaded title “Protecting the independent press from unfair competition” and by the way in which it was launched. The Government, as if to confirm that impression—as if they had no regard to whether the public, or indeed local authorities, would consider that they had given any proper thought to the consultation—published their response within two days of the end of the consultation.
	We have challenged the Government to give practical examples. As I have said, we acknowledged the issue about Tower Hamlets, on which they should have acted. Baroness Hannam said in the House of Lords that she had evidence involving other local authorities, yet she said—extraordinarily—that it would not be “helpful” to identity them. Asked to give examples, she said:
	“I shall not say which local authorities…are breaching the code. I have them. I could do it, but I think it is…not helpful.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 July 2013; Vol. 747, c. 604.]
	In Committee, the Minister said:
	“the fact is that there are examples out there.”––[Official Report, Local Audit and Accountability Public Bill Committee, 19 November 2013; c. 304.]
	He then vaguely referred to four councils—Plymouth, Lambeth, High Peak and Nottingham, all of them Labour-run—which had had the temerity to inform the public of the unfair scale of the cuts imposed on them by central Government. Can Ministers not see that the kind of censorship that they are seeking to impose through clause 39 is not democratic, not British, and not worthy of the values that our Parliament should uphold? The motivation is petty, but the consequences will be very serious indeed.
	Let me tell the House about the effect in my area. The Minister has suggested that a council publication in my constituency, the Nene Valley News, is competing unfairly with local papers. His ill-informed statements show why we should not trust the Government with these powers. The truth is that there is no newspaper for the Nene Valley News to compete with across much of east Northamptonshire—and now the only communications lifeline on which many people in the small towns and
	villages of my constituency can rely is being cut off. Those are people in areas with poor broadband access, and the demographic is such that, proportionally, there are fewer people in those areas than in some of the larger towns in the county who use social media widely, or even have access to the internet.

Clive Betts: Three years ago, the Select Committee conducted an inquiry into the whole issue of local authority publications, and found absolutely no evidence of any impact on commercial newspapers. Indeed, one of our findings was that many local authority publications were published on the presses of commercial papers, thus providing them with important additional income.

Andy Sawford: My hon. Friend, who chairs the Select Committee, is right. I think that there is often a complementarity between the newspapers, news sheets and magazines published by councils and other local papers. There is often a considerable spin-off in the form of the relationship between the communications that councils promote through their papers about local events and community organisations, and how vibrant local newspapers are able to become in terms of, for example, the advertising revenue that they can create in relation to such community events and activities.
	The Minister has claimed that the advertising in the Nene Valley News is the problem. First, it is not included in the code; secondly, I would gladly facilitate a meeting between the Minister and the local small businesses and traders who use the low-cost space in the Nene Valley News, and who are now extremely worried about how they will get business. I quoted one individual at length in Committee, but for brevity I shall merely say now that he concluded his remarks to me on this matter by saying, “Aren’t the Tories supposed to be a party that likes business?” He is very sceptical about the motivation for, and is concerned about the effect of, this crass, uninformed and undemocratic clause.
	The clause will damage local democracy, because it will mean that local councils are not as able to inform and engage the public in their work. It will also damage community groups, scout organisations, local charitable organisations, small businesses and the food banks which, sadly, are needed in our communities, as they will not be able to publicise their activities through the local free sheet—through the local council. Many of my constituents have contacted me to tell me that they object to what the Government are doing. I hope that all hon. Members will want to support our sensible amendments, which are supported by the Local Government Association, and I urge the Minister to accept them. We have not sought to strike out clause 39 completely, although we question why it is necessary and argue that the Government should have taken action previously in relation to the code.
	Amendment 14 seeks to make things more proportionate. Either the Secretary of State wants all councils to abide by the code or he wants to be selective. I am told that he wants to be selective, which makes me even more concerned. Amendment 15 seeks to delete the astonishing new subsection that sees the Secretary of State attempt to
	take editorial powers over all local government publications. The words in the Bill leap off the page, because it says he will take this power
	“whether or not the Secretary of State thinks that the authority is complying with the code”.
	The amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish evidence of a breach of the code.

Andrew Griffiths: I listened to much of what the hon. Gentleman said in Committee and followed his train of argument. Will he clarify whether he opposes the code itself or just its enforcement?

Andy Sawford: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman did not pick this up during our three Committee sittings on this clause, as we made it clear that we support the voluntary code. We have been able to agree on one example where there is clearly a question as to whether the code is being flouted, and it is a great shame that the Government have not sought fit to take any action in three years to enforce the code.

Andrew Griffiths: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Andy Sawford: I am going to make some progress, because the hon. Gentleman spoke extensively on these provisions in Committee and made us more, not less, concerned.
	Amendment 15 seeks to delete the astonishing new subsection I mentioned, to extend the time that the authority has to respond to evidence of a breach of the code to 28 days from 14, and, crucially, to require the Secretary of State to publish a report detailing his conclusions, having considered the response from the authority. That seems to us to be a very reasonable amendment that enshrines an evidential basis for taking any action in relation to the code. Amendment 16 seeks to delete the whole of proposed new section 4B, as we feel it is overly proactive meddling from the Secretary of State. We will seek to press amendment 15 to a vote. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will consider it reasonable that if the Government must press ahead with these powers, there is at least a requirement for the process to be evidence-led, for councils to have the right to make representations and for the Secretary of State to publish his findings before any action is taken.
	I end by asking the Minister, one more time, to try to persuade us that this approach is necessary by saying how he thinks that the Opposition, the cross-party, Conservative-led Local Government Association, Liberal Democrat-run and Tory-run councils all around the country, the National Association of Local Councils, the National Union of Journalists and my constituents in east Northamptonshire, who are so upset about the end of the Nene Valley News, are all wrong and he is right. Even if he still thinks he is right, can he explain, as someone who purports to be a localist, why it is right to impose central Government’s will? This clause is worthy of a crackpot dictatorship.

John McDonnell: This is barmy. It is absolutely crackers that we are spending parliamentary time on this matter. I receive Hillingdon People from my Conservative-controlled local authority. On virtually every page, there is a picture of a smiling Conservative councillor pointing at something,
	standing on something or expressing some view. Interspersed with the smiling photographs is genuine information about what is happening in the local community. People tell me that the newspaper is an ideal size for lining a hamster cage, so it serves some useful purpose in the local area.
	Today, the Government have announced the commission report on the expansion of aviation, which includes the threat to my constituency from the third runway. I have been assured that there will be cross-party opposition on my council to the Government’s proposals. We will use Hillingdon People to explain the proposals that have been introduced. We have used it in the past to explain the proposals of all political parties. Undoubtedly, views will be expressed by councillors on a cross-party basis condemning the commission’s proposals and, almost certainly, the Government’s approach. Does that mean that we will then be hauled before the Secretary of State to be advised on the words that we can use about this matter and on the way in which Hillingdon People will be used?
	The one good thing about local newspapers is that they reflect local opinion. There might be an overbalance of photographs of a certain party, but for all that they are a useful tool in mobilising local opinion around a local issue, and they are campaigning tools for a local authority in genuinely reflecting the views of the local populace who elected them.
	My local council has certainly consulted local people and supported local meetings to ensure that people can express their views on the extension of Heathrow. It has then reflected those views in Hillingdon People, and launched campaigns on the basis of what local people have said. At my last public meeting on this matter, a campaign called “Back Heathrow” was spuriously launched by the aviation industry to support Heathrow airport expansion. It was completely funded by Heathrow airport and run by its public relations agency. People then said to me that Hillingdon People should be used to put out accurate information, rather than the spurious propaganda that the airport was putting out. I am anxious that my local authority, which will go on the stomp on this issue, may be debarred from using Hillingdon People to explain what its views are and to campaign against the expansion of Heathrow airport.
	I would be grateful to the Minister if we heard his views. By the looks of it, he will now be the editor-in-chief of Hillingdon People, so I would welcome his views now before we put a foot wrong. Is it in order, under this Bill, for Hillingdon council to use Hillingdon People to campaign against Heathrow expansion and to disseminate information that will be opposed to the commission’s views and what seems to be the emerging view about a third runway at Heathrow?

Chris Williamson: I rise to speak against this Orwellian clause and in favour of the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Andy Sawford). He is absolutely right to say that the Government are seeking to put the Secretary of State in the position of censor-in-chief. We live in the United Kingdom. I thought that the Government believed in freedom of speech and the free press, but it turns out that that is not the case
	when it comes to publications produced by local authorities. It is clear that the Secretary of State is setting himself up as some sort of Orwellian big brother figure. If the clause goes through, the Department for Communities and Local Government should be renamed the ministry of truth. It is all right for the DCLG to issue draft press releases praising the Government. As my hon. Friend the Member for Corby said, as long as local government is praising the policies of central Government that is okay, but if it has the temerity to point out that in some way what the Government are doing might have a negative impact on the communities that they represent, then woe betide them; that is not acceptable. When the Secretary of State seeks to take that kind of power to himself, we have to ask what kind of country we want to live in. This is completely wrong. Just look at the document—it could be a Tory hand-out. It has even suggested the headline that the local authorities might like to put on their press releases. It reads, “Pickles praises troubled families programme”—so, big up the Secretary of State, but, whatever you do, do not say anything that could be interpreted as negative.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Corby pointed out that there is absolutely no evidence suggesting widespread abuse of the voluntary code. Indeed, we would be hard-pressed to find any example, let alone widespread examples, so this provision is completely over the top. We have talked about using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, but it is more like using a pile-driver to crack a minuscule nut. There is no example of any abuse. It is clear, therefore, that the Secretary of State is seeking to set himself up as the censor-in-chief.
	In Committee, I challenged Government Members to come up with some examples of the abuses that merit this heavy-handed legislative response. The first out of the traps was the hon. Member for High Peak (Andrew Bingham), who came up with the ludicrous assertion that legislation is merited to stop a photograph of the Labour leader of his local borough council appearing in the council newspaper with a Labour party pen. A pen with the Labour logo on it was an abuse that merited legislation—talk about crackers, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) said. It is unbelievable. We are talking about legislation to stop local authorities publishing their council newspapers, giving information to the local community about matters affecting them, and it is suggested that the Secretary of State should be put in charge because a Labour leader appeared in a council newspaper holding a pen with a Labour logo on it.
	The hon. Member for High Peak must have scrutinised that photograph with a magnifying glass to be able to see the logo, let alone to suggest that it would influence people. He dug himself an even bigger hole by comparing it with product placement, which is banned on the television. He said that we do not see packets of cornflakes on the table in “EastEnders”. Crackers really does not cover it.

Chris Heaton-Harris: The hon. Gentleman is making some cogent points. If that photograph had appeared on a Member of Parliament’s website paid for by IPSA, IPSA would have banned it. I am not sure whether that helps or hinders his argument, but someone else would want to ban that logo placement.

Chris Williamson: With the greatest of respect, I think the hon. Gentleman is talking through his hat. I am not sure that IPSA would ban it. Is he telling me in all seriousness that that would happen if a Labour politician appeared on their website and happened to be holding a pen with a Labour logo on it? People would not be able to see it; it is ridiculous. In the Committee sitting, I had a pen with “League Against Cruel Sports” emblazoned on it. I held it up and challenged the hon. Member for High Peak to read what it said on the pen, because the scale would have been about the same as in the photograph in the borough newspaper. He could not see it; of course he could not. The hon. Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) mentions IPSA, but that compounds the ludicrousness of the Government’s case. When the hon. Member for High Peak made the point, he was unable to read the logo on my “League Against Cruel Sports” pen and, in the same way, without a magnifying glass he would not have been able to see that the Labour leader had the temerity to hold a pen with the Labour logo on it.
	The next out of the traps was the Minister, who referred to a poster. A poster in Lambeth was a bit critical of the Government—we can’t be having posters. The poster was, I think, on a bus stop—so far, therefore, a pen and a bus stop merit legislation.
	The final Government Member out of the traps, as I recall, was the hon. Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths), who quoted Councillor Western, the Labour leader of Derbyshire county council. She had the temerity to point out that the cuts being imposed by central Government would have “a devastating impact” on our communities. Well, that is a statement of fact. It seems that Members on the Government Benches do not want statements of fact if they are in any way, shape or form marginally critical of what the Government are doing, even though they are accurate. This really is Orwellian and merits references to the ministry of truth. I sincerely hope that any Government Member who believes in fairness, free speech and the freedom of the press will support my hon. Friend’s amendment.
	I conclude by reinforcing the point made by my hon. Friends the Members for Hayes and Harlington and for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), to which my hon. Friend the Member for Corby may have alluded as well—the fact that local council newspapers are in no way a threat to the local newspaper industry. I know from personal experience at a local level that Derby city council uses a local newspaper to print and publish its council news-sheet, so far from damaging the local newspaper industry it is having a beneficial impact.

John McDonnell: I am the secretary of the National Union of Journalists group in Parliament. There needs to be a discussion between Departments. We are working with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and will hold a seminar in the new year to discuss how we ensure that all Government Departments can assist in the development and support of the local press. A Member on the Government Benches suggested publishing local material in the local media or on a wrap-around basis, which would support the print industry and the local press.

Chris Williamson: Indeed. There is a happy partnership between many local authorities and the newspaper in their local area. It is a significant overstatement of the truth to suggest that local authorities producing their newspaper are in any way responsible for the decline in the local newspaper industry. Many other factors, not least access to online information, are responsible for the decline. What the Government seek to do will not arrest that decline and might make matters worse. The truth is that, where there is a partnership with the local newspaper serving the local authority area, limiting the number of times the council can produce information through its newsletters will diminish the local newspaper’s income stream. Far from assisting local newspapers, the Government will add to their decline. I hope the Minister will reflect on that.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington referred to his connection with the NUJ. Let me quote the National Union of Journalists’ response to what the Government propose. As my hon. Friend the Member for Corby said, in many areas where there is no local newspaper, local people rely on the council publication for useful information and would regret the Government decision to limit the council’s ability to produce that for them. The NUJ says:
	“In areas where there are no, or limited local newspapers, then sharing planning details, service changes and details of consultations on a quarterly basis is insufficient”.
	It is clear that there is no evidence to support what the Government want to do. The amendment—this is pretty unprecedented, in my experience—is supported by the Local Government Association, a Conservative-led body. It is very rare for the LGA to come out and support an Opposition amendment. It is also supported by the National Association of Local Councils, the National Union of Journalists and members of the general public. It is hard to find anybody who has a good word to say about this Orwellian clause, save for a handful of hard-line Conservatives on the Government Benches.
	I implore the Minister, if he has any semblance of concern for the feelings of the public or the wishes of the Tory-led Local Government Association, and if indeed he genuinely believes in a free press and freedom of speech, to support amendment 14, because that would be in the interests of freedom of speech and of the general public, ensuring that they have the information they need about services and other activities in their local area provided by the council. I hope that he will reflect on that and support the amendment.

Alex Cunningham: I rise to support amendments 14 to 16. Nothing is more likely to get the blood rising in the body of a journalist, even one who has not worked in mainstream journalism for half a lifetime, than the idea that someone wants to interfere in the message they are trying to deliver to their readers. That was my reaction when I first heard about the Secretary of State’s ambition to become editor-in-chief of all council publications, from city authority newspapers to parish council newsletters.
	I spent many a happy year working as a journalist in the local and regional media and then in the communications industry for a blue-chip company. I never experienced any real interference, and certainly nothing like the level that the Secretary of State wants. Likewise, in my 20 years as a councillor, first for Cleveland
	county council and then for Stockton-on-Tees borough council, I never saw the abuse of power through publications of which the Secretary of State appears to be so terrified. It will therefore come as no surprise that, as a former journalist and councillor, I have particular concerns about clause 39, which gives the Secretary of State the power to direct local authorities to comply with a specific code of conduct relating to their publicity materials.
	If the Bill passes in its current form, as other Members have said, the Secretary of State will be appointing himself editor-in-chief of Local Government Inc. and assigning himself carte blanche to intervene, irrespective of whether he believes a local authority is complying with the code of practice. So that we are clear about the extent and reach of the proposed powers, I will explain that clause 39 would apply to all local authority publicity material, including newspapers, such as the quarterly Stockton News in my constituency which is delivered to so many residents across the borough to keep them informed about services and what is going on in the local authority area. It would apply to posters advertising the many events, schemes and projects that local authorities promote for the benefit of their citizens. It would also apply to the social media updates that local authorities provide to ensure that residents have up-to-date information.
	As an aside, I would be fascinated to know how the Secretary of State plans to monitor the thousands of communications emanating from councils across the country every day. Does he have plans for an army of Twitter monitors, Facebook spies and online assessors to ensure that there can be no challenge to his authority? Of course not, so perhaps the Minister can explain just how that brave new world will be policed.
	The powers proposed in clause 39 are entirely disproportionate and represent a stubbornly heavy-handed response, as the Government have identified only one example of a local authority apparently abusing its position. Even in that instance, as other Members have said, the local authority involved has denied the accusation of contravening the Government’s current code of recommended practice. I agree that any political bias would be unacceptable in local authority publicity, and the code of conduct requires objectivity, even-handedness and appropriateness. That much is beyond contention. It was with that in mind that we encouraged the Government to take action in cases where possible breaches are identified in order to ensure neutrality and fairness. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Andy Sawford) has said, the Government have not even written to the local authority in question about the publication. I must therefore question whether the Secretary of State truly believes that a breach has been committed.
	It is also worth repeating that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Corby said, through a series of freedom of information requests it has been established that, since coming to power in May 2010, the Government have not contacted a single local authority to express concern about potential breaches of the code. Perhaps they can tell us how many they expect to contact in the future under the new proposals. Assuming that the Government are implementing the current code of practice in full, we must take it from that that few councils, if any, are
	breaking existing recommendations. All of that begs the following question: why fix something that is not broken?
	When we bear these factors in mind, the context of the Secretary of State’s attempted power-grab politics becomes abundantly clear. With the lobbying Bill currently seeking to limit the campaigning that third sector and voluntary organisations are able to undertake, it appears that the unpopularity of the Government’s policies has begun to sink in. Is the Secretary of State really heading up a damage-limitation mission to control how local authorities communicate the politically toxic effects of the Government’s policies to their local communities merely by explaining the changes and cuts that they need to make?
	We know from copies of the template press releases that the Department has issued to local authorities’ press teams that they encourage bias as they frame Government policy in what could only be described as positive terms. Does this mean that the Secretary of State will have to punish one of his own Conservative-led councils for being politically biased for printing material from his own Department? This illustrates the absurdity of his proposals and reveals an outrageous double standard, if ever there was one.
	Clause 39 not only grants to the Secretary of State the ability to determine when and how local authorities can publish communications to local residents but assigns to him the ability to dictate the issues and information that they can communicate as well—perhaps an ideal set of circumstances that would put him on a par with the Rupert Murdochs of this world. Why does he not just ban all the newspapers, ban all the publicity and ban all the posters? It would have the same effect. If that were not extreme enough, he is similarly assigned the ability to control the language and phraseology that local authorities will be permitted to use. Perhaps the Government will manage to rid the public of the bedroom tax after all, but changing the words will not change the devastating effects that his policies are having on some of our most needy people.
	I am sure that the significance of this move, coming as it does so soon after the intense debates that have been had on the topic of press regulation and the need to remove the risk of political interference and maintain the sanctity of free speech, will not be wasted on Members on both sides of the House. I am minded to ask the Secretary of State whether, were he to assume these new powers, his reformulated role would be compliant with the spirit of the royal charter in providing the public with better protection from press abuses while upholding the freedom of expression that is so central to our democracy. Surely those provisions should apply to him as well. A new term has been coined for him this afternoon: the censor-in-chief—which is certainly what he will be with these powers.
	In short, such wide-ranging powers will disfranchise local authorities, removing any semblance of their discretion over communications with residents. Let us not forget that local authorities have a responsibility to represent those residents and to provide services for them, and that transparency and accountability are fundamental cornerstones of that duty. Were an authority unable to protect the interests of its residents, it would unquestionably be failing in its duties.
	Given the Government’s agenda for the national planning policy framework, the plans before us appear to undermine their express goal of empowerment for local residents and fly in the face of their professed localism agenda. Members need not just take my word for it. Baroness Eaton, the former Conservative leader of Bradford council, has described as “regrettable” the proposal in the Bill that will
	“centralise powers to the Secretary of State and allow central government to interfere with matters that should rightly be decided at a local level.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 May 2013; Vol. 745, c. 902.]
	Ministers have already made clear their intention to prevent local authorities from sharing information or commenting on the impact of Government policy if they disapprove of the message. That would inevitably have the effect of gagging local authorities in contentious policy areas. To give an illustrative example, a piece in Stockton News entitled “Challenging Times”, published earlier this year to inform residents of upcoming service changes, would be unlikely to make it past the Secretary of State’s red pen unscathed, referring as it does to
	“a time of unprecedented reductions in Government funding to the Borough as a result of the Government’s austerity measures.”
	The Secretary of State might not like the fact that Stockton borough council’s funding will have fallen by 40% between 2010 and 2016, but that is precisely what it is—a fact. We are talking about facts—political, maybe, but not politicised. That is crucial to the argument for upholding the freedom of speech. I should also make the point that, as far as Stockton News is concerned, no politicians, with the exception of the civic mayor, ever write or comment in it. The publication does not even quote them or publish pictures of them.
	Local authorities often work with residents, community groups and MPs to promote the best interests of residents in matters such as the siting of local health provisions and national infrastructure developments. If the Government’s proposals pass, the Secretary of State could use clause 39 to block such collaboration, ultimately to the detriment of residents.
	Let us not forget that local authorities are already required by statute, in the shape of the Local Government Act 2000, to have regard to the contents of the publicity code, and should the Secretary of State have reason to believe that a local authority has failed to comply with a statutory obligation, he is able to intervene by seeking judicial review. The Secretary of State has failed to detail why he deems current provision to be inadequate or to explain why he has yet to apply any of the current powers. Instead he has argued that clause 39 is needed to protect the local press from unfair competition for advertising, but he has not told us how the situation is unfair.
	Time and again, the Secretary of State overlooks some essential points, not least that the recommended code of practice has no provisions relating specifically to advertising, other than to specify lawfulness. This suggests to me that this particular argument is but a distraction from the underlying aim to censor local authorities and their elected councillors.
	The nonsense of the suggestion is best borne out by the Communities and Local Government Committee report, which declared—others have already alluded to
	this—that there is no evidence that council publications are competing unfairly with local newspapers. Indeed, far from unfair competition, the obligation on local authorities to publish statutory notices actually results in local authorities paying the commercial newspaper industry some £26 million a year. Taking into account total spend, including general advertising, local authorities spend nearly £44 million a year with the commercial newspaper industry, which blows the Secretary of State’s argument out of the water.
	As I have made clear, I can see no reason to move away from the current code of recommended practice to an unnecessarily heavy-handed, regulated system entrenched in legislation. We simply cannot hand full editorial control—because that is what this will mean—to one person for his own political motives. For that reason, I support amendments 14 to 16.

Brandon Lewis: First, let me be clear that good communication between a local authority and the public is important. Let me also be clear that what clause 39 delivers is a manifesto pledge by both coalition parties. Local authority publicity can be expensive and it can be controversial, so it is important that local authorities get it right.
	In Committee I outlined our intentions and explained exactly what the clause seeks to achieve. We should be conscious of the fact that localism is about empowering local people to be able to challenge and see, transparently, what their local authority is doing. This is about true localism and making sure that we are also able to do our bit to defend the independent local press.
	The code of recommended practice on local authority publicity ensures that publicity is, among other things, cost-effective, objective, even-handed and appropriate, and Labour Members have agreed in principle with the voluntary code. It ensures that taxpayers’ money is not wasted on issuing inappropriate publicity or publicity that political parties themselves should be issuing, rather than a local council using taxpayers’ money to do it. The code has been in place since 2011. It was debated and approved by both Houses of Parliament.

Andy Sawford: The Minister is right to say that the code seeks to prevent using money on things that are politicised, but does he not see that his argument is not consistent with a Department that is sending out puff pieces about its Secretary of State for local authorities to issue?

Brandon Lewis: I suspect that deep down inside, the hon. Gentleman—we almost became hon. Friends in Committee—probably realises that there is a world of difference between a template press release sent to independent local journalists and a municipal taxpayer-funded newspaper that takes away the competition of a local independent press. None of the provisions in the Bill makes any changes to the publicity code.
	Let me give a very clear example of how the process might work for a local authority publishing a weekly newspaper—such as Nene Valley News, which was mentioned by the hon. Gentleman—in direct competition to the local independent press that is so important in holding councils to account. Under the provisions, the Secretary of State, after advising the local authority that he intends to do so and giving it time to make any representations it wishes—such as that there is no other
	local paper—may, if he thinks fit, issue a direction requiring that the local authority comply with some or all of the code, but particularly, let us say, the part advising local authorities that council newsletters should be issued no more than quarterly. If the Secretary of State considers that a group of local authorities, or even all local authorities in England, should be required to follow the guidance in the code, he must of course make an order, which would need to be debated and agreed by both Houses of Parliament.

Alex Cunningham: Will the Minister tell us the name of one newspaper group that has approached the Department to claim that local authority publications are undermining and threatening its business?

Brandon Lewis: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman looks at Hansard for the reports of our proceedings in Committee, where we outlined the evidence—including from the Newspaper Society, which complained about exactly that issue—particularly, as was noted, in relation to Tower Hamlets.
	Amendment 14 confuses the very clear and necessary provision that the Secretary of State may direct a local authority to comply with some or all of the publicity code. The amendment would achieve little in practice, as the Secretary of State may of course issue more than one individual direction. Amendment 15 would also be far from beneficial. It would add layers of complexity and bureaucracy to what should be a straightforward procedure to allow the Secretary of State rapidly to address incidences of the guidance in the code not being observed.

Andy Sawford: Will the Minister give way?

Brandon Lewis: No, I shall make a little progress. The hon. Gentleman was keen to make progress during his speech.
	Any local authority that already—rightly—complies with the guidance in the code would be wholly unaffected by a direction. Amendment 15 would remove sensible, proportionate measures and put in place a gold-plated bureaucratic process that requires the publication of not one, but two reports by the Secretary of State, all while taxpayers’ money might continue to be wasted.
	Amendment 16 seeks to remove the provisions to ensure that a group of local authorities, or all local authorities in England, comply with the guidance in the code. We have sensibly decided to make provision for the Secretary of State to require compliance with the code not only by an individual local authority, but by a number of them or even, if necessary, by all local authorities in England.
	The Secretary of State can issue an individual direction to an authority, but to require a group of local authorities or even all local authorities in England to comply with the code the Secretary of State must make an order subject to the agreement of both Houses of Parliament. That was a recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, and we were happy to amend the Bill to give effect to it. Amendment 16 would quite wrongly undo the power and the recommendation, leaving a ridiculous situation in which if the Secretary
	of State wanted to act to address widespread non-compliance by a group of councils, he might have to issue hundreds of individual directions. The amendment would also remove parliamentary scrutiny of the process.
	We are obliged to make the provisions because although the vast majority of local authorities comply with the code, a very few do not; we accept that there are very few. It is to address that abuse of council resource and waste of taxpayers’ money that we have rightly decided to act. The provisions are important, proportionate and necessary.

Alex Cunningham: The Minister is making some sweeping comments. I would be interested to know whether he can tell us of one local authority that the Secretary of State has found it necessary to take action against under the existing code, which is adequate for the purpose that he is outlining? I think we already know the answer.

Brandon Lewis: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have done his homework and will realise that for the Government to take action under the voluntary code, there would have to be a long and expensive judicial review.
	The provisions are the right way in which to move forward so that we can enforce the code effectively, efficiently and swiftly. It is slightly baffling that the Opposition claim that they have no problem with the voluntary code agreed by Parliament and support it, but do not want it to be enforced. That just does not make sense, has no credibility and does not add up. The provisions ensure that we can protect the good, local independent press, and that taxpayers’ money is used efficiently and effectively, and not wasted on town hall Pravdas. I encourage hon. Members to resist the amendments.

Andy Sawford: What a shocking response. We will not press amendments 14 and 16, but we will press amendment 15 to the vote.
	Amendment 15 would place a very simple expectation on the Secretary of State: that he would act on the receipt of evidence, that he would share that evidence with the local authority and that he would ask it to comment. As the Minister says, these matters should be subject to local discretion as well as to national direction. The Secretary of State would simply have to say, in taking enforcement action against a local authority, that he had found a breach of the code. It would be incredibly simple, straightforward and right to make that amendment if the Secretary of State feels that it is necessary to take these extraordinary powers, even though we do not.
	The Minister’s response, as at each stage of the passage of the Bill, has made us far more concerned, not less, about the intention behind this very worrying and deeply anti-democratic clause.
	I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Amendment proposed: 15,page26,line25, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
	‘(4) A direction can only be made by the Secretary of State if—
	(a) evidence of a breach of a code has been published by the Secretary of State to the local authority;
	(b) a local authority, on receipt of a letter from the Secretary of State notifying them of evidence which purports to demonstrate a breach of the code has made a response to the Secretary of State within 28 days; and
	(c) upon receiving any response the Secretary of State has published a report detailing his conclusions.’.—(Andy Sawford.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 226, Noes 287.

Question accordingly negatived.

Dawn Primarolo: We now come to the next group of amendments. The hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Stephen Barclay) is not here to move lead amendment 17. I call the Minister to move amendment 6.

Clause 41
	 — 
	Council tax referendums

Brandon Lewis: I beg to move amendment 6,page30,line32, at end insert—
	‘(13A) Subsections (14) to (16) apply (and subsections (18) to (20) do not apply) if, in accordance with section 49(2A), this section comes into force on the day on which this Act is passed.’.

Dawn Primarolo: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	Government amendments 7 and 8.
	Amendment 18,page31,line2, at end insert—
	‘(17) The Secretary of State may, by Order, exempt from the calculation of an authority’s basic amount of council tax any levies agreed as part of a City Deal signed prior to this Act receiving Royal Assent.’.
	Government amendments 9 to 11.

Brandon Lewis: Our amendments are precautionary measures to remove the risk of local authority budgeting being adversely impacted in the event of a delay to the Bill taking effect. Clause 41 currently provides that the council tax referendum calculations will take account of levies from 1 April 2014. The referendum principles, which we intend to publish in draft very shortly, will be put to this House for approval in February as normal. Those principles will take account of levies, but will be subject to the will of Parliament and the Bill, which will have come into force by then.
	The amendments have a relatively simple effect. Together, amendments 6, 9, 10 and 11 provide that if the Bill is passed by 5 February—the likely date by which the referendum principles must be laid before Parliament—the provisions in clause 41 will take effect immediately and the changes to the referendum provisions will take effect for the 2014-15 financial year. Otherwise, the changes will take effect by order from 2015-16. There is no reason to believe that the provisions will not be in force before the referendum principles are approved, but we are tabling this group of amendments to give local authorities advance certainty over timings so that they can be confident that any delay in Parliament would not impact on their budget-setting timetable.
	Amendment 7 is a minor amendment clarifying that the clause does not alter the existing discretion of the Secretary of State when determining categories of authority for 2014-15. Amendment 8 addresses the ability of the Secretary of State to determine categories of local authorities on the basis of whether their 2013-14 council tax increase would have been excessive had levies been taken into account. The clause puts this existing ability beyond question and does not extend it further. Similarly, the amendment does not extend that existing ability, but updates the references to increases in 2013-14 to include references to increases in 2014-15, should the provisions take effect from 2015-16. The current transitional provisions in subsections (14) to (16) ensure that council tax comparisons between 2013-14 and 2014-15 are made on a like-for-like basis. An amendment must be made to ensure that this protection for authorities still exists if levies are to be included from 2015-16. Subsections (18) to (20) in amendment 8 provide that protection.
	In summary, these amendments are precautionary measures only and, apart from clarifications and restatements of existing legislation, have one purpose:
	to ensure that in the event of any unpredicted delay, local authorities will continue to be treated consistently and to benefit from the transitional protections already in the clause.

Andy Sawford: Our amendment 18 would give the Secretary of State some discretion to prevent any unintended consequences arising out of the levy changes from affecting city deals. The amendment states:
	“The Secretary of State may, by Order, exempt from the calculation of an authority’s basic amount of council tax any levies agreed as part of a City Deal signed prior to this Act receiving Royal Assent.”
	We are concerned that the provisions to include levying bodies could affect those city deals that have been agreed around the country.
	The provisions would, for example, affect the deal in which the Leeds city region has been promised a large investment fund that is to be part-funded by the increased levy from the integrated transport authority. The deal was done in the expectation that the current rules would apply—that is, that the integrated transport authority levy would not be included in the calculation. Will the Minister clarify that, at the time the city deal was signed, there had been no discussion about changing the rules on levying authorities? The answer to that must surely be no. Had the Government known that they intended to make these retrospective changes, it would only have been right to inform the authorities that that city deal could be undermined by the changes on levying made at a later date. All local authorities are important, of course, but those that are leading our major cities and trying to work in partnership with the Government could understandably think that there had been a breach of faith in this regard.

Huw Irranca-Davies: It strikes me that the same argument could apply, in principle and in practice, to the internal drainage boards, which work in partnership with the Environment Agency. They are worried that being included in the referendum provision could lead to their being unable to do the essential drain clearing that helps with flood alleviation. My hon. Friend is making his point well. Does he agree that this could also apply to the internal drainage boards?

Andy Sawford: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This group of amendments on levies would have significant implications for internal drainage boards. There was a specific amendment on them, but it has now been withdrawn. However, the other amendments will affect the boards just as they will affect other bodies that apply levies. I know that my hon. Friend considers this to be an important matter; he is an expert on matters affecting our rural communities and, in particular, on flooding. If a local authority felt the need to take urgent action—or, indeed, long-term action—on flood defences, I think we would all be concerned if that ability were to be undermined by the provisions in the Bill. I will return to that issue in more detail later.
	Leeds city region has written a letter to the Deputy Prime Minister to raise concerns about the clause, and it gives us a new insight that we did not have in Committee. The city region is concerned that including levies within
	the ambit of a calculation to hold a referendum on annual increases in council tax could result in it having to hold
	“up to 60 referendums, with the Combined Authority not being in a position to know whether its investment programme was affordable until all referendums had been passed.”
	Is the Minister aware of that concern, and does he recognise those possible implications? A critical element of the Leeds city deal is the local contribution fund. The Leeds city region believes that the Bill, as it stands, will make the fund “impossible to deliver”, because it could trigger up to 60 referendums a year and the authority might have to conduct such referendums over a period of five years.
	In Committee, the Minister said that the figures provided thus far did not make a compelling argument for treating city deals differently. Does he agree, however, that these new figures from Leeds city region should make us think again and support a clause that does not require the Secretary of State to make exemptions but, rather, merely permits him to do so?
	The Minister might well be proved right; this might not become an issue. Leeds city region clearly believes that it will, however. If that were to happen, would it not be in everyone’s interests if the Secretary of State could make a judgment to exempt the levies? It would be in the Government’s interest, in terms of their good faith in negotiating the city deal. It would also be in the interests of the city regions around the country, particularly Leeds city region, which has expressed so much concern.
	If a council tax referendum were lost and the levying body refused to reduce its levy, what would the Minister expect a local authority to do? Under the Bill as it stands, a levying body would not have to abide by the result of a referendum, should one be triggered and subsequently lost. In effect, therefore, the financial risk would be on the local authority regardless of whether the increase in council tax was a direct result of its financial decisions. That cannot be fair.
	The provisions are retrospective. The Minister told us on Second Reading and in Committee—his noble friend Baroness Hanham told their lordships—that the provisions are not retrospective. They clearly are. The Local Government Association is absolutely clear in its analysis of the effect, as are Labour Members. Clause 41(15) allows the Secretary of State to apply changes retrospectively. He will be able to impose a different referendum limit on authorities where their council tax increase for 2014-15 would have been excessive under the new definition, but not under the current definition. This is not fair on those authorities that have taken decisions in good faith based on the legislation in place at the time. There is no difference in principle between Labour Members and the Government on the intention to protect citizens and residents of our local councils from excessive council tax increases. Indeed, councils such as Hackney have been freezing their council tax for many years and setting an example, as other Labour councils have done, but we would not want to see an unfair retrospective provision that undermines the plans that local authorities have put in place.
	There is clearly a risk of perverse outcomes that will put growth-generating investment at risk. Levying bodies are, by statute or local agreement, able to recover some
	or all of their costs by charging local authorities a fee for infrastructure or services. Local government in England is subject to a variety of different levying arrangements covering significant and regionally important issues such as transport, drainage—the point my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) made—and a wide range of other local issues. There is enormous scope for perverse outcomes in our communities from these provisions.
	There are a number of examples where the extension of council tax referendums will cause instability and uncertainty; not just the Leeds example, but many other areas around the country where plans have been made on a different basis from the legislation that is now being proposed. On integrated transport, the implications in west Yorkshire, for example, are that if the referendums were lost, it would put at risk £750 million of investment and 20,000 new jobs; these are very significant consequences.
	Under the Bill’s provisions, an internal drainage board that needed to take emergency action to manage flood risk may be denied the capacity to do so by the outcome of a referendum. These boards may also be unable to support wider central Government objectives because the changes might limit their ability to levy funding to invest in flood defences. Participants in the work that Sir Michael Pitt did a few years ago in response to some of the most severe flooding we have seen in this country were left scratching their heads as to how, at a time of public sector financial constraint, we would meet the challenge of ensuring that there are effective flood defences. We know that some of the poorest and most vulnerable people are the most exposed to flood risk around the country. There are issues with insurance, for example. One of the sensible ways in which we were able to take this forward was through the drainage boards and the work they were able to do. That could now be undermined.

Huw Irranca-Davies: My hon. Friend illustrates the point very well. It is only a couple of years ago that we had extensive flooding in the south-west of England. One of the consequences of that was the need to do emergency work very rapidly on the drainage channels there. The levies paid through IDBs are very well supported by those communities that need them for flood alleviation.

Andy Sawford: My hon. Friend has considerable expertise in this and he is right. If a drainage board needed to take emergency action, clearly it would not be in the interests of communities—the very people who, during a cost of living crisis caused by the Government, we agree we want to protect from excessive council taxes—to leave them exposed to flood risk if we know that we can take emergency action to address that.
	There are issues with pension authorities, particularly in some metropolitan counties and in London, which operates the legacy pension schemes of the Greater London Council. As with the rest of the local government pension scheme, there is little control over the costs of these, which are increasing with each successive valuation. Indeed, more levying bodies may be created in the future as a consequence of the pension governance reforms that the Department is considering.
	In short, these proposals have not been thought through. We do not disagree with the fundamental intention behind them—to keep council tax down—but we do
	disagree about how they are being introduced, without further thought or consultation, and particularly about some of the issues that arise from retrospection as it affects drainage boards and city deals. We would urge the Government to go back to the drawing board. With the leave of the House, we will seek to press amendment 18 to a vote.

Brandon Lewis: Before dealing with amendment 18, let me touch on the issue of internal drainage boards, which some hon. Members have raised. IDB levels are not being singled out. This Bill will ensure consistent and fair treatment between all local authorities.
	I shall now turn directly to amendment 18, which relates to local authorities that have collectively entered into “city deals”—agreements with the Government on additional freedoms and financial certainties in order to promote local growth and skills—before the Bill’s commencement. This area was touched upon on Second Reading and debated in more depth in Committee, where the hon. Member for Corby (Andy Sawford)was content to take away and consider the clarifications and assurances I gave in response to a similar amendment.
	Since this amendment has been tabled, I am happy to repeat some of the points discussed in Committee and to provide hon. Members more widely with any further expansion I can give. Although the amendment would have a wider effect, I understand that its intent is to address a single specific case—that of the Leeds city region deal— where there are plans to create a transport investment fund that would allow about £1 billion to be raised from grants, contributions from stakeholders and borrowing. Repayment of that borrowing will be met by the constituent authorities via modest increases in the transport levy over the next decade. This arrangement is novel. It will provide much-needed investment in the region and remains an arrangement that the Government are committed to and happy to support. However, the figures generated by Leeds and the other authorities taking part show that if those levy increases were passed straight on to local taxpayers in the form of higher bills, it would be affordable without the need for a referendum. It would amount to an increase of between 0.2% to 0.9% per year.

Andy Sawford: I understand the Minister’s point, which he made in Committee. It is a fair point, but does he accept that the consequence would be to restrict the ability of local authorities across that area, in a way that they never imagined, to raise council tax in a way that local authorities outside the city deal could? The amount that would trigger the referendum would mean that they were limited?

Brandon Lewis: I will come on to that very point in a few seconds.
	I have to say that there is no basis for suggesting that these levies would result in authorities being forced to hold referendums. Given the relatively small increases involved, I would urge those authorities to freeze their council tax instead and take advantage of the grants we are making available to support them in doing so, thus holding down council tax for hard-working people.
	Let me gently suggest to Labour Members that this is an area where the facts do not support the claims being made. It is right for the Opposition to test and challenge the statements of the Government of the day, but where
	there is shown to be no basis for criticism, we should move on and focus our attention elsewhere. In this case, we are proceeding over ground already debated several times here and in the other place, and the figures involved are not disputed by the Opposition or the authorities themselves. However, in the same manner as for any other authority, if Leeds, Bradford or any other council wishes to make representations about how the proposed referendum principles will apply to their particular circumstances, the Secretary of State would take them into account when asking the House to approve the final principles in 2014.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I am listening carefully to the Minister and I am genuinely probing because this is a matter of concern. Can he give a categorical assurance that where emergency funding is needed for an area, as advised by an IDB, it would trigger the referendum and would not delay the essential work from being done? Can he give that categorical assurance and, if so, how?

Brandon Lewis: The hon. Gentleman makes a cogent point. My constituency of Great Yarmouth has been heavily affected by the east coast weather, with 9,000 evacuations and some homes lost in Hemsby, where the community is working phenomenally well together. What happens in the event of floods or other major disruptive events is that the Government look to support authorities facing major unexpected problems in the usual ways—through the building scheme, for example, or other appropriate bespoke approaches. Inclusion of levies in council tax legislation will have no effect on those procedures.

Huw Irranca-Davies: rose—

Brandon Lewis: I want to make some progress, but I am happy to talk to the hon. Gentleman further about Bellwin.
	The other claim made in Committee and on Second Reading was that the Government were reneging on their agreements with authorities and that they gave their approval for large council tax increases as part of the Leeds city deal. That is not correct. The Leeds city deal was not agreed on the basis that it meant large council tax increases for local people or on the basis of denying them their say if Leeds or other authorities wished further to increase council tax—for instance, to increase investment and go beyond what is set out in the deal itself. That could happen only so long as local taxpayers, who will have to bear the burden, are willing to accept it. It is a matter for them. With those reassurances, I hope that the hon. Member for Corby will not press his amendment to the vote. If he does, I encourage Members to resist it.
	Amendment 6 agreed to.
	Amendments made: 7,page30,line37, after ‘may’, insert ‘, in particular,’.
	Amendment 8,page31,line2, at end insert—
	‘(17) Subsections (18) to (20) apply (and subsections (14) to (16) do not apply) if this section comes into force on a day appointed by the Secretary of State by order under section 49(2A).
	(18) Section 52ZC of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 applies with the following modifications to the determination of a set of principles for the financial year beginning with 1 April 2015.
	(19) The Secretary of State may, in particular, determine categories of authority for that financial year—
	(a) on the basis of whether an authority’s relevant basic amount of council tax for the financial year beginning with 1 April 2013 would have been excessive if that amount for that year and for the immediately preceding financial year had been determined under section 52ZX of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 as amended by this section,
	(b) on the basis of whether an authority’s relevant basic amount of council tax for the financial year beginning with 1 April 2014 would have been excessive if that amount for that year and for the immediately preceding financial year had been determined under that section as so amended, or
	(c) on the basis set out in paragraph (a) and on the basis set out in paragraph (b).
	(20) In subsection (3)(b) of section 52ZC the reference to an authority’s relevant basic amount of council tax for the financial year immediately preceding the year under consideration is to the amount that would have been calculated by the authority for that year under section 52ZX of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 if the amendments made to it by this section had been in force for that year.’.—(Brandon Lewis.)
	Amendment proposed: 18,page31,line2, at end insert—
	‘(17) The Secretary of State may, by Order, exempt from the calculation of an authority’s basic amount of council tax any levies agreed as part of a City Deal signed prior to this Act receiving Royal Assent.’.—(Andy Sawford.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 222, Noes 284.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 44
	 — 
	Interpretation of Act

Amendment made: 2,page34,line19, at end insert—
	‘(2A) References in this Act to provision made under it include provision made under Part 42 of the Companies Act 2006 as it has effect by virtue of Schedule 5.’.—(Brandon Lewis.)

Schedule 2
	 — 
	Relevant Authorities

Amendment made: 3, page 42, line 36, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert ‘that is wholly in England’. —(Brandon Lewis.)

Schedule 4
	 — 
	Further provisions about Auditor Panels

Amendment made: 4,page47,line5, after ‘authority’, insert ‘other than a health service body’.—(Brandon Lewis.)

Schedule 5
	 — 
	Eligibility and Regulation of Local Auditors

Amendment made: 5,page58,line3, leave out sub-paragraph (3) and insert—
	‘(3) For paragraph 6 (holding of appropriate qualification) substitute—
	“Holding of appropriate qualification
	6 (1) The body must have rules to the effect that an individual is not eligible for appointment as a local auditor unless the individual—
	(a) holds an appropriate qualification,
	(b) is an EEA auditor who has passed an aptitude test in accordance with sub-paragraph (3), unless an aptitude test is not required (see sub-paragraphs (4) and (5)), or
	(c) has been authorised to act as a local auditor by the body pursuant to the European Communities (Recognition of Professional Qualifications) Regulations 2007 (SI 2007/2781), and complies with the requirements of those Regulations that apply to a person acting as a local auditor.
	(2) The body must have rules to the effect that a firm is not eligible for appointment as a local auditor unless—
	(a) each individual responsible for local audit work on behalf of the firm is eligible for appointment as a local auditor, and
	(b) the firm is controlled by qualified persons (see paragraph 7 below).
	(3) The aptitude test—
	(a) must test the individual’s knowledge of subjects—
	(i) that are covered by a recognised professional qualification,
	(ii) that are not covered by the professional qualification already held by that individual, and
	(iii) the knowledge of which is essential for the pursuit of the profession of local auditor;
	(b) may test the individual’s knowledge of rules of professional conduct;
	(c) must not test the individual’s knowledge of any other matters.
	(4) No aptitude test is required if—
	(a) the individual is to provide services consisting of local audit work on a temporary and occasional basis, or
	(b) the subjects that are covered by a recognised professional qualification and the knowledge of which is essential for the pursuit of the profession of local auditor are covered by the professional qualification already held by the individual.
	(5) Whether the provision of services is on a temporary and occasional basis is to be assessed on a case by case basis and in particular by reference to its duration, its frequency, its regularity and its continuity.
	(6) A firm which has ceased to comply with the conditions mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) may be permitted to remain eligible for appointment as a local auditor for a period of not more than three months.”
	(3A) In paragraph 7 (meaning of control by qualified persons)—
	(a) in sub-paragraph (1) (introductory), for “paragraph 6(1)(b)” substitute “paragraph 6(2)(b)”, and
	(b) in sub-paragraph (2)(b)(i), (requirement for firm to be eligible for appointment as statutory auditor), for “statutory auditor” substitute “local auditor, or as a statutory auditor in accordance with this Part of this Act as it has effect apart from its application by virtue of Schedule 5 to the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2013.”’.—(Brandon Lewis.)

Clause 49
	 — 
	Commencement

Amendments made: 9,page 36,line3, leave out ‘and’ and insert ‘to’.
	Amendment 10,page36,line5, at end insert—
	‘(2A) If this Act is passed before 5 February 2014, section 41 comes into force on the day on which this Act is passed; otherwise that section comes into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by order appoint.’.
	Amendment 11,page36,line8, leave out paragraph (a).—(Brandon Lewis.)
	Third Reading

Brandon Lewis: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	Let me begin by thanking the members of the Public Bill Committee, who did such an excellent job in ensuring that the Bill was subjected to thorough scrutiny. We benefited from the wide range of experience that a number of colleagues from all parties had of working in and being part of local government and I thank them for committing their expertise to the Bill.
	In particular, I should like to thank the hon. Member for Corby (Andy Sawford), who fulfilled his commitment to give the Bill robust but fair scrutiny. In the other place, Lord McKenzie commented that audit is sometimes
	considered “boring but important”. I would say that the often passionate critique put forward by the Opposition in the course of this Bill’s passage certainly proves the latter while arguably testing the former assertion. I am particularly grateful to the hon. Gentleman and his Opposition colleagues for their support in helping us to introduce new measures into the Bill in Committee.
	The new provisions to modernise parish polls respond to amendments from the Earl of Lytton, who, in his role as president of the National Association of Local Councils, highlighted the urgent need to reform that outdated legislation. The measures to open up local council meetings will break down the doors of town halls and increase the transparency of local decision making. I am pleased that we have achieved consensus on that as it shows that in this digital age, as the way the public consumes information changes, it is no longer right that decisions should be made out of the sight of local taxpayers. We will, of course, work closely with interested parties to ensure that, as we agreed in Committee, we strike the right balance in the regulations between allowing members of the public to film council meetings and minimising disruption.
	The Bill is the culmination of a great deal of work with a number of third parties, particularly the Audit Commission, which I would also like to thank for its support and healthy challenge throughout this process. During the Bill’s passage through the House, we have made, as has been noted, a number of amendments to strengthen it. In addition to the two new measures we have added, we have also made amendments to enable the sector to set up collective procurement arrangements, through which relevant authorities can choose to have an auditor appointed on their behalf. That has been welcomed by the Local Government Association and we will continue to work with it in developing the regulations that will set out the approach in more detail.
	Also prompted by debates in the other place, we have amended the Bill to extend the purposes for which data-matching exercises may be used. That will enable the future owner of the national fraud initiative to continue to undertake data-matching exercises on the detection of errors and inaccuracies, as the Audit Commission can under its existing powers.
	In addition, we have made a number of other technical and clarifying amendments to several of the local audit provisions, which will ensure the smooth and effective operation of the new audit regime after the Audit Commission’s demise. In addition to the amendment we have made today to support the transparency of the auditor appointment process, we have also clarified how the provisions apply to parish meetings, the qualifications and eligibility criteria for local auditors and how local auditors will recover costs for undertaking all their statutory functions.
	We have had a lengthy debate about the local government publicity code. I think it is safe to say that we are all agreed on the content of the code, but that there is a difference of opinion about how that code should be enforced. I say again that it is right that action should be taken when authorities are failing to comply with the code. By ensuring compliance, the Bill will support local accountability by protecting the local free press from unfair competition and preventing taxpayers’ hard-earned money from being squandered on propaganda and competing with the local independent press.
	The Bill further protects the taxpayers’ pound by ensuring that levies will be included within the council tax referendum principles. No longer will a local authority be able to raise council tax through back door levy increases, making taxpayers pay more for services that councils down the road do in-house and within the referendum principles. That levels the playing field for local authorities and the amendment we have made today will provide certainty for those authorities.
	In conclusion, the Bill is another important step in delivering the Government’s localist agenda. It deals with some of the fundamental principles of good governance and good government, it promotes responsible and robust public accounting, it drives decision making down to the local level and it protects local taxpayers and defends local democracy. To return to my opening remarks, it is an important—and I would say interesting—Bill and I commend it to the House.

Hilary Benn: The Bill certainly has generated a great deal of debate—more, I suspect, than either the Minister or others who thought it was just about audit might have anticipated. That is in no small measure, as the Minister has just acknowledged, due to the skill and forensic arguments put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Andy Sawford), who did sterling work in Committee, as he has done today, ably assisted by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods) and also my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson), from whom we heard today.
	I join the Minister in expressing thanks to all Members who served on the Bill Committee, all those who gave evidence to the ad hoc Joint Committee, and my colleagues the noble Lords McKenzie and Beecham for the work they did in scrutinising the Bill in another place.
	As we know, this is a Bill that arises from a very early decision that the Secretary of State took, which was to abolish the Audit Commission. When we heard from him on Second Reading, he was convinced that it was the right thing to do. We all recognise that the commission is going, but only time will tell whether it was right for the Secretary of State not to take the advice of the noble Lord Heseltine, who originally introduced the Audit Commission because he thought it was wrong for local government to appoint the people who audit it.
	What is striking about the Bill, however, is that the quality of some of the content we have debated at length has not benefited from the length of time it has taken the Government to bring it forward, in part because of the complexity of what has been removed and therefore the need to construct arrangements to replace it. I acknowledge that the Government moved on the issue of joint procurement, and I am grateful to the Minister for listening to the arguments made by local government and by my hon. Friend the Member for Corby, but I am genuinely sorry that the Minister either has not wanted to get the arguments that we made or has not properly understood the consequences of the Bill failing to anticipate the new world in which local authorities have to work. That is particularly surprising, given that Ministers often lecture local government about the need to make change.
	On access to information, the amendments that we argued for were all about the public’s right to know. As we are aware, the Audit Commission is covered by the Freedom of Information Act; private auditors in general are not. As councils change the way in which they work, it is very important that the public have the right to understand what is happening and have access to information. Listening to the Minister this afternoon, the more he protested that our amendment was not necessary, the more puzzled I became. Then there was a moment of what I hope was conversion. I am delighted by what he had to say when pressed by my hon. Friends. We will hold him to what he said about ensuring that the public has exactly the same right as it currently has using the Freedom of Information Act to get access to information that auditors and private companies have about contracts that they are undertaking on behalf of local authorities.
	I am very sorry that the Government have not made provision for auditing that will be fit for purpose for the years ahead. The Minister did not do justice to the argument that we advanced. We did not suggest that the Bill prevents local authorities from working together with each other or with central Government—for example, through the troubled families initiative. That is not our argument. Our argument is that when the Whitehall and the local pound are brought together to provide services at a local level, there will continue to be different audit arrangements.
	I say to the Minister, and I hope he will reflect on it even when the Bill has become an Act, that that does not make sense. An audit, especially when the Bill gives us a chance to set it on a new footing, must take account of the changing way in which public money is spent, particularly as community budgets develop. It does not make sense if there is a community budget for different bodies, with the NAO trying to chase the Whitehall pound down the road and the local authority auditor looking at the local pound.
	One clause that was dissected and then comprehensively savaged by my hon. Friend the Member for Corby, both in Committee and earlier today, is clause 39, which deals with the code of practice for local authority publicity. I was interested to hear that the Liberal Democrats apparently could not bring themselves to vote for it in Committee, because they were absent when it was discussed. I do not blame them, because they are right to be embarrassed by what is a most illiberal piece of legislation.
	The hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) described that provision as a sledgehammer. If I may coin a new phrase, I think that it is a sledgehammer of a blunderbuss, and it has been constructed on the back of a lot of ministerial complaining about Pravda-like publications. I have not read quite so many local authority publications since Second Reading, but I have still found no figures on tractor production, which I continue to be disappointed about.
	Basically, no evidence has been advanced on local authority publications. It is no good the Minister in the other place saying, “I could give you the names of 12 authorities, but I don’t think that would be helpful.” We have heard the Minister give one example, that of “East End Life”. The really damning revelation is that for all the complaints, concerns and denunciations of
	breaches of the code, he tries to suggest that what the Bill offers is true localism, and in three years the Government have not even contacted a single local authority, which is astounding. They could not be bothered to write a letter to a single authority, but they could be bothered to draft a shoddy clause that will give the Secretary of State the right to control every single local council publication, every website, leaflet and bit of content—the lot.
	The Secretary of State, if he takes offence, will be able to tell councils, “You’re not allowed to refer to the bedroom tax as the bedroom tax. You have to call it something else.” If he feels like it, he will be able to stop councils commenting on spending cuts and the way they affect the local authority area. He could stop them commenting on airports, HS2 or NHS changes. He can even tell local parish councils that they cannot produce 12 double-sided A4 sheets a year. He will be able to do anything he wants. Censors the world over might think that is a jolly good clause, but the House was unconvinced.

Brandon Lewis: I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman giving way at this stage, when I would not normally seek to intervene, but I just want to point out gently that parish councils can still produce 12 such publications a year—one a month.

Hilary Benn: Absolutely, but the problem with the clause is that they cannot publish any more than that. If they want to bring out a special edition on their Christmas celebrations, for example, having had their 12, that would not be allowed, because the Secretary of State is taking the power to prevent that.
	The clause states that the Secretary of State can exercise all those powers regardless of whether he thinks that the local authority is complying with the code of conduct, which is extraordinary. I read with great care the arguments that the Minister tried to advance in Committee, but I am afraid that I found none that justified that. The truth is that Ministers ought to be really careful with the great big blue pencil they are about to get hold of.
	On referendums and levying bodies, I must say that I was unconvinced by the Minister’s arguments in relation to the Leeds city region deal, described by his ministerial colleagues as a watershed moment, which was signed before the new policy was announced. The Minister has still not answered the question I asked the Secretary of State on Second Reading, and which was asked again today by my hon. Friend the Member for Corby, so I will put it slightly differently. The city deal was signed towards the end of the year and the announcement of the new policy on referendums and levying bodies was announced at the beginning of the new year. Knowing how long it takes to decide on these things in government, I think that it is inconceivable that Ministers were not privately discussing changing the rules at the very moment when they were discussing the Leeds city region deal. If that is the case—I will give way to the Minister on this point—why did he not tell the people they were negotiating with? He does not want to intervene, so for the third time we have had no answer to the question, and some people will draw the conclusion that they do not want to answer it.
	The Minister will have seen the letter mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Corby that the Leeds city region sent to the Deputy Prime Minister on
	6 December asking the Government to solve the problem they created by changing the rules after the agreement was signed. The Minister knows very well how important the transport infrastructure fund is to the Leeds city region deal; indeed, it is the main thing that the city region got out of city deals, which, as he knows, I support. The letter is signed not only by the chair of the combined city region which is to become an authority—the leader of Leeds city council—but by the chair of the local LEP. They are not persuaded by the Minister’s arguments, because they say:
	“As it stands, the Local Audit and Accountability Bill makes the Fund impossible to deliver.”
	I listened carefully to what the Minister said, and I do not know whether there is a chink of light there, but he has a responsibility to sort this out.
	Apart from doing justice to the Leeds city region, there is another argument for why the Minister has a responsibility to deal with this. If the Government go back on a done deal, which is what has happened in this case, they undermine confidence in the city deal process, undermine the certainty on which financial planning has to be based, and undermine the confidence of those who will negotiate with them in future, who will ask themselves, “Hey, look what happened to the Leeds city region—how do we know they aren’t going to change the rules for us after we’ve signed our names in ink on a piece of paper?” It needs to be sorted out.
	As the Minister knows, we support the other changes that were made in this House on parish polls and councils allowing recording and videoing of council and committee meetings. In this day and age, with the very big changes in technology that enable every citizen to become a reporter, all of us in this House, whichever side we sit on, want more people to take an interest in what our local authorities are doing by going to meetings and reporting them to spread the news and make sure that more people can see what is going on.
	We will not oppose the Bill given that provision has to be made for a replacement for the Audit Commission, which is on its way out, but in some respects it is a lost opportunity. For all the words that the Secretary of State, in particular, is fond of saying about localism, once again this Bill proves that the longer he is in office the more he cannot resist using legislation to tell local councils what to do.

Annette Brooke: I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Sir Andrew Stunell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Duncan Hames) for serving on the Committee. The thoroughness of the scrutiny by the hon. Member for Corby (Andy Sawford) has been very apparent. It would be remiss of me if I did not mention my noble Friend Lord Tope, as have many others, and thank him and Lord Shipley for their contributions in the other place. I also thank the Minister for his great courtesy throughout.
	This Bill has pluses. It was right to abolish the Audit Commission. Having gone through the whole passage of the Bill, we have got to a pretty good place as regards auditing. I feel reassured by the Minister on the remaining issues. I am particularly pleased that he will continue to work on regulations with the Local Government Association. I applaud the modernisation of parish polls,
	which I am sure will be a great relief to parishes in my constituency. I welcome more openness in the recording and publication of council meetings, as that can only be a plus for local government.
	We have discussed the publicity code at much length today. Clearly, there is agreement on the code itself across the House, but following its implementation and impact will possibly be an interesting experience. I can see the point of including levies in the referendum principles, thereby preventing unaccountable levying authorities from exerting pressure on council tax, but there is more talking to do about the potential unintended consequences. The Minister indicated that he would continue to listen to people’s concerns.
	Finally, the Bill does not repeal the duty on local authorities to publish statutory notices in their local newspapers. I accept that the Government feel that this is not the right time to do that, but I urge them to keep looking at the issue. It is a burden on local government, given the tightness of its finances, and it is also the most ineffective way to communicate very important information to local residents.

Neil Carmichael: I served on the Bill Committee and thoroughly enjoyed it. I thank everyone else who served on the Committee for making it such an enjoyable process. As has been recognised, we scrutinised the Bill extraordinarily well.
	I want to talk briefly about internal drainage boards, which are important. In my constituency, the IDB is essential in maintaining flood defences and as part of the process of ensuring that houses are protected. The accountability of our IDBs is relevant to the Bill, so I want to underline their importance to local communities. I also note that councillors are, of course, on the boards and should be applying influence as appropriate. The precept issue should not disguise the fact that IDBs play an important part in land drainage, certainly in areas of my constituency.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

Business without Debate
	 — 
	DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Pensions

That the draft Armed Forces and Reserve Forces (Compensation Scheme) (Consequential Provisions: Primary Legislation) (Northern Ireland) Order 2013, which was laid before this House on 19 November, be approved.—(Mr Gyimah.)
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Capital Gains Tax

That the draft Taxation of Regulatory Capital Securities Regulations 2013, which were laid before this House on 22 November, be approved.—(Mr Gyimah.)
	Question agreed to.

Mr Speaker: With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 5 to 7 together.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Representation of the People

That the draft Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013 (Transitional Provisions) Order 2013, which was laid before this House on 17 July, be approved.
	That the draft Representation of the People (England and Wales) (Description of Electoral Registers and Amendment) Regulations 2013, which were laid before this House on 23 October, be approved.
	That the draft Representation of the People (Provision of Information Regarding Proxies) Regulations 2013, which were laid before this House on 23 October, be approved.—(Mr Gyimah.)
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Representation of the People, Scotland

That the draft Representation of the People (Scotland) (Description of Electoral Registers and Amendment) Regulations 2013, which were laid before this House on 30 October, be approved.—(Mr Gyimah.)
	Question agreed to.

EUROPEAN UNION DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 119(11),

Regulation of Tobacco and Related Products

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 18068/12 and Addenda 1 to 7, a draft Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco and related products; welcomes the success of the Government so far in securing agreement for top priority issues such as the prohibition of characterising flavours, including menthol, in tobacco products; supports the Government’s continued pursuit of its key negotiating objectives during Trilogue negotiations, primarily a text which provides adequate flexibility for Member States to go further in certain key areas of public health policy, including packaging, where the evidence supports this and it is
	justified by the Treaty; further notes that the Government recognises the importance of further strengthening the internal market, taking into account a high level of health protection; and supports the Government’s view that the proposed Directive is good for public health and will be a positive measure in the Government’s efforts to reduce the number of children and young people who take up smoking in the UK.—
	(Mr 
	Gyimah
	.)
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 119(11)),

Economic and Monetary Union

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 14102/13, a Commission Communication: Strengthening the social dimension of the Economic and Monetary Union; and supports the Government’s position that any measures to increase social and employment co-ordination should be voluntary for Member States outside the Eurozone.—(Mr Gyimah.)
	Question agreed to.

PETITION
	 — 
	The Lilacs Care Home, North Lincolnshire

Nicholas Dakin: I would like to pay tribute to the hard work that Councillors Sandra Bainbridge and Tony Ellerby have done in leading this petition to defend an asset in their ward.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of residents of Scunthorpe,
	Declares that the Petitioners are very disappointed by the ruling of the Conservative group of North Lincolnshire Council that they intend to close The Lilacs care home despite it being a manifesto promise of theirs to not do so.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons requests the Government to urge North Lincolnshire Council to rethink their decision and consider the impact that this closure will have on local residents.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P001314]

DALGETY BAY

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr Gyimah.)

Gordon Brown: I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for agreeing to this debate, but I regret having to come back to the House and subject it to a fourth debate in less than three years about a single issue in one constituency—radiation contamination in the Dalgety Bay area of Fife.
	It is now more than half a century since contaminated materials containing radium-226 were dumped on the Dalgety Bay foreshore by people on behalf of the Ministry of Defence. It is now just under a quarter of a century since the Ministry accepted that the contamination existed and posed a potential safety risk. It is now three years since the discovery of large amounts of contaminated particles that, as a result of coastal erosion, had risen to the surface, with some particles having a level of radiation that is judged to be a risk to health and thus completely unacceptable. It is now nearly two years since the Ministry of Defence committed itself to a plan that required the polluter to clean up the area. It is now six months since the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment and Public Health England, the relevant health body advising the Ministry, called for the clean-up to be agreed and to happen as soon as possible.
	Despite more than 50 years of contamination, nearly 25 years of the Ministry of Defence knowing about the risks, two years of knowing the seriousness of the risk and the likely escalation of such risks, and two years in February since a plan was agreed with the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, there has been no clean-up, no agreement to fund a clean-up, no agreement on a plan for a clean-up, no agreement even on the options for such a plan and, as yet, no presentation of the options for a clean-up plan or the promised consultation on those options. Indeed, the Ministry of Defence has yet to agree to what it promised in February 2012 to do by May this year—publication of the options for remedial action, acceptance of responsibility by the polluter for the pollution and a plan to fund the clean-up.
	It is sad to report that despite all the evidence proving the Ministry of Defence’s responsibility and all the evidence of its admission of responsibility as long ago as 1990, the Ministry is even now—months after a report this spring named it as the polluter—refusing to accept that it has responsibility in this area. That is despite the clear promise made in a letter from Mark Hill of the Defence Infrastructure Organisation, dated 21 December 2012, which stated:
	“In the event that MOD is found to be an Appropriate Person in accordance with the statutory regime for contaminated land”—
	the MOD was of course named as the appropriate person a few months ago—
	“the Department will fulfil its legal obligation to meet its portion of the liability and carry out voluntary action including remediation where appropriate.”
	All this is yet to happen.
	There has therefore been a failure to make progress on three important issues—publication of the options for the clean-up, agreement on the funding of the clean-up, and acceptance of responsibility as the polluter. Those
	issues of deep concern locally have brought me back to the House today to ask the Minister—I know that he has visited the area and, as he will reply to me for a second time in the House, he is fully aware of the issues or, at least, he should be—to use his influence to end the delays, to end the failure of the Ministry of Defence to accept responsibility and to end what I am afraid to say is a lack of consideration for the people of Dalgety Bay that is now strongly felt in the local community.
	The issue of the contamination and its significance cannot be wished away. Dalgety Bay is already the first and only area of the United Kingdom where a radiation risk assessment has had to be done to measure the extent of the contamination. It is also the first and only area of the country to be the subject of what is called an appropriate person report—a report under the legislation dealing with radiation contamination—which has been produced through very detailed research by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. It has concluded that, without any doubt in the matter, the polluter of the area is indeed the Ministry of Defence.
	Dalgety Bay is therefore not only the first area subject to such a risk assessment and to the naming of a polluter, but it is still at risk of being named by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency as the only radiation contaminated area in the United Kingdom, which has never happened to areas where there are nuclear weapons, nuclear power stations or nuclear waste storage. If it had to be imposed on the area, which is a scenic part of the Fife coastal walk, such a decision would blight the foreshore, harm the environment and cause difficulties for the town that would last well into the future or, at least, for as long as we can see ahead.
	We therefore cannot gloss over this matter. For 13 years, starting in 1946, decommissioned military aircraft were scrapped and then incinerated. The resulting ash, which included radiated particles, was dumped in the area of Dalgety Bay.
	To give an understanding of the scale of the pollution, I want to draw the House’s attention to a memo of 14 December 1990, which was sent by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of pollution to the then Minister at the Scotland Office. The official’s report stated:
	“I attended a meeting with the MOD to discuss the possible origins of the contaminated material and to consider how best to proceed. MOD confirmed that some 800 aircraft were scrapped during 1946 at the nearby…HMS Merlin and that the aircraft would have contained instruments and equipment luminised with radium.
	There is evidence that the debris from demolition work at the…station was used for infilling purposes between 1946 and 1959.
	This information, together with the nature of the contained debris which has been found leaves little doubt as to the origins of the contaminated debris which has been found…and is likely that there is more material buried in the area inland from the beach.”
	He said:
	“I am glad to report that”
	the MOD
	“seem willing to help both with further monitoring and with any remedial action which might be necessary.”
	In the last debate on this matter, the Minister told me:
	“We have found no evidence to corroborate claims that 800 aircraft were destroyed in 1946 through burning, and the resultant waste material—including ash—deposited on the beach or within the headland prior to 1959.”—[Official Report, 9 July 2013; Vol. 566, c. 335.]
	I take that one contestation of the report to mean that everything else was correct: that the dumping did take place, that it was authorised by the Ministry of Defence, that the waste is a potential risk, and that the Ministry of Defence does and should take responsibility. It is only the precise number of aircraft that he cannot confirm, but he cannot deny the figure either.
	In 1992, there was a report in which the Ministry of Defence accepted that Dalgety Bay was a polluted area. Again, after 2000, Mr Fred Dawson, the head radiation protection officer dealing with the safety officer at the MOD, advised that the Ministry of Defence would be found liable and that there was significant reputational damage involved in denying liability in this area. More recently, the community council, under the chairmanship of Colin McPhail MBE, whom I congratulate on the work he has done to expose this matter, solicited statements by former and present residents about the scale of what happened in the ’40s and ’50s. I understand that the leader of Fife council, Alex Rowley, has assembled a mass of evidence that is available to the Ministry.
	It is hardly surprising that the Scottish Environment Protection Agency states:
	“The total number of radioactive…particles…that have now been recovered since the beginning of our investigation in September 2011 is over 1,000. Of these sources, five had a radioactivity content of greater than”
	the accepted level of radium-226. After that report, we cannot doubt that the dumping of materials was done by the Ministry, that those materials have radioactive content or that, because of coastal erosion, the particles are being brought up to the surface in greater numbers. Action must now be taken. The discovery of radiation particles on the surface is not an historical problem that is diminishing the further we move from the time of the dumping and that is likely to disappear over time; contaminated particles are being discovered all the time. That is aggravated by winter storms and rising coastal erosion. Such particles are being washed up or found on the foreshore at the rate of 100 a month.
	Let us be clear what the Ministry of Defence promised us would have happened by now. In February 2012, the Ministry agreed to an “Investigation Plan”, which listed the stages of work that would be undertaken. The Ministry promised that in the second part of stage 3, which was due to happen between February and May this year, it would outline management options for the clean up of the site:
	“MOD will set out within the investigation report outline management options which may include remediation.”
	That was supposed to have happened seven months ago. The report also stated:
	“The options should be distinct and range from the ‘do minimum’ to the ‘maximum possible’.”
	It recommended an holistic approach and said that the listing of the options was to have happened seven months ago. It then said:
	“It may be appropriate to sift the outline options…to whittle the number down to a manageable size”.
	That has not been done either.
	It said that stages 4 and 5 were then to be progressed by the appropriate persons. Stage 4 should
	“comprise the long-term management/remediation solutions”,
	with consideration of
	“source removal, pathway disruption and receptor protection…to reduce the level of uncertainty.”
	Stage 5 should then be delivered by the appropriate person, meaning the polluter, the Ministry of Defence.
	Not one of those promised actions has yet happened. Seven months on from the deadline agreed by the Ministry, there has been no option study published and no narrowing of the options. Although the Ministry has been named as the polluter, none of the options has been costed and none of the clean-up has yet been agreed. None of the work has been planned or gone out to contract, far less any clean-up done. Work that was supposed to have been completed on a timetable from February to May this year has not been done, and we are still waiting for the options paper to be published and the consultation entered into.
	The community council chairman was promised in a letter from Mr David Olney of the Defence Infrastructure Organisation, dated 26 March 2012:
	“MOD experts are already in regular contact…in order to ensure the successful completion of the investigation by May 2013.”
	That has not happened. The effect is that work that should have been commissioned in the autumn and completed by the winter has now been delayed. The likelihood is that we will face another winter of coastal erosion, with more particles being brought to the surface, and that a summer and autumn of delays will be followed by a winter of further delays, about which I want to ask for answers today.
	The consultation that was promised has ground to a standstill. The last meeting of the Dalgety Bay particles advisory group was held on 22 May and the last forum meeting on 30 May. A meeting of stakeholders was promised before the end of the year, but none will take place until the beginning of next year, which means that work is unlikely to start before next summer, if then.
	The Minister must also consider the fact that the delays are all the more regrettable because nearby, in Almondbank in Perth, at another ex-Ministry of Defence site where contamination was discovered, the clean-up was agreed and carried out within six weeks. It appears that that was because the remedial work was a condition of sale, with penalty clauses included. It looks like the Ministry is willing to act with speed only when there is a legal obligation to do so.
	Machrihanish, where there are far lower levels of radiation, was also cleaned up without anyone having to come to Parliament to beg for it to be done. Again, that was because of a condition of sale in a commercial contract. Must we really accept that the Ministry of Defence will move only when there are commercial obligations and stall when it feels it has only a moral obligation to act? Have we to wait for the Scottish Environment Protection Agency to impose statutory obligations on the Ministry of Defence, which it is entitled to do?
	The delay is galling because, as I understand it, the Ministry of Defence will announce in the next few days that it will break up submarines at Rosyth, next door to Dalgety Bay. For months it has been consulting on a plan, one of the options in which is to store not only low-level but intermediate radioactive material there. In that case, it would be nuclear waste.
	The Minister has accepted responsibility not only for the DIO but for Scotland as part of his work in the MOD. As any visit he makes to Scotland will prove, the Ministry cannot command any public confidence when it seeks to guarantee safe long-term storage of either low-level or intermediate radioactive nuclear waste in Rosyth if it cannot even reassure the people of the next- door town that it will take responsibility for the safe disposal of the long-standing radiation waste at Dalgety Bay. Would the Minister be happy to accept the storage of even more radioactive waste in his constituency if he had no assurances about the safe storage of the existing waste?

Thomas Docherty: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for securing this important debate. Does he agree that there is no way in which my constituents in Rosyth or his in Dalgety Bay will accept for a second that waste being stored at the site or in the wider West Fife area?

Gordon Brown: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It seems that one part of the Ministry of Defence has no clue what another part is doing. It wants to store waste at one place in that part of Fife but refuses to clean up the mess left by previous waste in another part. It is shocking that there is not co-ordination within the Ministry, and I believe that people who work on the nuclear programmes in the MOD are unhappy with the state of affairs that the Minister and his colleagues have left us with.
	I come now to the delays. When replying to the previous debate, the Minister said we should take into account the views of Public Health England, which he said had not exactly given a “ringing endorsement” to the report produced that showed the risk and named the polluter. The letter sent to SEPA from Public Health England stated on 28 June:
	“I am writing to provide comments on the…risk assessment …Regarding your contaminated land assessment, we agree that radium-226 contaminated objects recovered from Dalgety bay include objects that could give rise to radiation doses that exceed the relevant criteria for the Radioactive Contaminated Land (Scotland) Regulations 2007; specifically the effective dose criterion of 100 MSV.”
	Whether or not that is possible, it is important that such objects are removed from the beach and disposed of appropriately.
	On 10 July Public Health England wrote:
	“It is clear that there is a level of radioactive contamination that requires further investigation and appropriate action.”
	The response stated:
	“You also asked about the extent that risk mitigation is required. It is clear that doing nothing is not an option and as noted above, it is important that agreement is reached by all of the interested parties on the best way forward.”
	Public Health England then wrote formally to all parties on 21 August saying that it has
	“consistently called for a management strategy to be developed and implemented at Dalgety bay.”
	It concluded:
	“We agree that the…criterion on effective dose could be exceeded for ingestion.”
	There is no doubt about where the health authorities stand on the issue.
	I understand that the MOD is worried about creating precedents, and that 15 sites with similar waste have been revealed by the MOD, including Dalgety Bay.
	I know that a radioactive waste inventory of 2010 suggests there are many more sites that are not under the control of the MOD but may have radioactive waste. However, I have always argued that because of coastal erosion on a site beside the sea, there is a special case for action in Dalgety Bay that the Ministry of Defence should now accept. Nothing excuses it for refusing to act on the incontrovertible evidence now available.
	In the past few months, all the facts have been produced, researched, documented and published in forensic detail. We know that without doubt the MOD was responsible for dumping the waste, and that it knew for nearly 25 years without telling us that there were safety issues and risks that should have been dealt with. We also know that if it does nothing to fund the clean up, it will have legal obligations that it will eventually have to meet. It is surely time to bring this sad saga to a conclusion in the only way possible, and I hope I will not have to ask you, Mr Speaker, for a fifth debate before the responsible course of action is pursued. That responsible course is for the MOD to own up to the damage, to pick up the bill to get rid of the waste and clean up the area, and to do so as soon as possible. The patient and long-suffering residents of Dalgety Bay deserve nothing less.

Andrew Murrison: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) on securing this debate—his fourth on the subject since November 2011. Believe me, Mr Speaker, I sincerely hope that he will not have cause to call a further debate, and that some of the things I say today will reassure him about what is happening and what is to be done in the near future, and that that will be helpful for him and his constituents.
	As he said, I visited Dalgety Bay in July to see the situation for myself, and I have read the case file in depth. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I have taken a close personal interest in this matter. We now have the draft outline management options appraisal report dated 30 September. That has been shared with SEPA and will be published early in the new year. I would be surprised if he has not had sight of it already, but if he has not, I will ensure he gets a copy.
	Following a meeting between SEPA, the MOD and Public Health England on 28 November, the preliminary findings of the detailed risk assessment, heralded in July, will be available early in the new year. I think SEPA has now agreed that both are needed to determine a credible and coherent way forward.
	Contrary to the impression that the right hon. Gentleman and others continue to give, the MOD has never sought to abdicate its legal responsibilities, much less “pass the buck” or delay progress in reaching a resolution. We have been upfront about the Department’s historical activities and the part they might have played in introducing radium into what was the royal naval air station Donibristle and HMS Merlin. Moreover, he will recall that we previously intervened to remove contaminated material from gardens within the housing estate that now occupies the former defence sites, while taking care to avoid blighting his constituents’ properties. Furthermore, removal of contaminated material is one of the options contained in the September options appraisal.
	To date, our support to SEPA alone has cost in excess of £1 million pounds. Work undertaken by the Department has included: a site investigation; an ongoing monitoring and recovery programme; continual work to reduce the hazard by removing any radioactive contaminants found; and most recently work to develop the more detailed risk assessment necessary to inform the discussion and development of an effective long-term management strategy. This work has the support of both SEPA and Public Health England, which, despite its name, is also responsible to the Scottish Government.
	As the right hon. Gentleman would expect, the MOD sought legal advice, and this has been shared with SEPA. Senior counsel’s advice deals with judicial review of SEPA’s risk assessment, SEPA’s appropriate person report, to which he referred, and the statutory guidance on which it apparently relies, and the advice is that this matter could be subject to a judicial review favourable to the MOD. That opinion was informed by acknowledged experts in radiological assessment, as he would expect. Rather than seeking to settle the matter by potentially expensive, protracted and divisive legal means, however, my Department favours dialogue and the development of a robust evidence-based understanding of the risk that accords with established best practice and is scientifically rigorous.
	I understand the frustration caused and the impatience of the right hon. Gentleman and his constituents with the clean-up, and I can assure him that we are genuinely working as fast as we can, with the parties concerned, to bring the matter to a satisfactory conclusion. He will understand better than most, however, the complexity and the scientific and technical difficulties posed by the site. I am reliably informed that the site is unusual and that that has resulted in some of the delays to which he referred. I hope he agrees that, without the understandings I have mentioned, it is not possible to engage all interested parties in developing and delivering a viable long-term solution that is proportionate to the risk. It remains open to SEPA, if it is confident of its reports, to designate the MOD as an appropriate person, triggering either acquiescence by MOD or a legal challenge, but to date there has been no such designation.
	The right hon. Gentleman has not specified precisely what remedial action he seeks. If I can be candid with him—he has referred to this too—I fear large opportunity costs translating to waste where there is negligible risk to public health. He will know that if the MOD concedes this case without identifying where any significant health risk might emanate on the site, the precedent could cost hundreds of millions of pounds in extensive and unnecessary remedial work across the country. Statute calls for a risk-based approach, but it remains doubtful whether there is a significant risk of harm. It is also unclear whether the activities undertaken on the land after my Department vacated the site changed the risk by potentially exposing the public to contamination.
	Ultimately, the presence of radium at Dalgety Bay must be viewed and addressed in the light of the statutory regime for contaminated land, rather than the correspondence from the 1990s to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, or concepts such as ALARA —as low as reasonably achievable—designed primarily for other purposes.
	The draft report from the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment states that
	“there does not appear to be a current risk from external radiation”.
	I take that to mean gamma and beta radiation. The right hon. Gentleman will recall that the Centre for Radiation, Chemical and Environmental Hazards has previously concluded that the likelihood of a member of the public inadvertently ingesting an object contaminated with radium that could cause them significant harm is less than one in 10 million. I remind him that, in 1998, he was aware of the view that the annual risk of contracting a fatal cancer through inadvertent inhalation or ingestion was found to be less than one in 1 million—something that he regarded then as a “negligible risk”. Indeed, he pointed out at the time that it is more negligible than the risks run by people living among the granite of Aberdeen.
	After the right hon. Gentleman made his remarks, a scoping risk assessment was undertaken by the Centre for Radiation, Chemical and Environmental Hazards in 2012. It took account of the two high-activity objects found in late 2011 and two subsequent objects found in April 2012, and, together with the current management measures, concluded that the risk of attributable cancer from Dalgety Bay was actually less than one in 10 million. That is less than the risk that informed the right hon. Gentleman’s 1998 reassurance by an order of magnitude. In addition, the most recent cancer report collated by COMARE found no evidence of the occurrence of cancers in the local population that would ordinarily be attributed to the presence of radium-226.
	The right hon. Gentleman—who was of course Chancellor, then Prime Minister, between 1997 and 2010 —did nothing on this subject during that time other than to announce that his constituents faced a negligible risk of harm in 1998. I have to say to him that he needs to be very careful indeed about raising fears in his local population. He knows full well that the Government will comply with statute, but I have told him that we will go beyond that. We will voluntarily play our full and proper part in protecting public health, but that has to be evidence based and underpinned by a proper risk assessment.

Gordon Brown: I think the Minister knows—and no one should be under any other impression—that it was only in 2010 and 2011 that the scale of the particles appearing on the surface became so great that we had to have the extra investigations, to find out what needed to be done. The main point, which should not be evaded when we are talking about all the other issues in this debate, is that this clean-up will have to happen. The engineering options will have to be set out, and the Ministry of Defence will have to accept responsibility. When the Minister presents the options paper in January, will he narrow down the options to those that are realistic, and then have an immediate public consultation on them? Will he then agree to set a timetable under which he will agree to fund the chosen option? We have agreed that he wants to dispense with lawyers whenever possible. Let us now have a sensible timetable so that we can get this done. We must not go through another winter with this contamination rising to the surface.

Andrew Murrison: I have given the right hon. Gentleman an assurance that I want to see this sorted out quickly. There are two bits of material that are necessary in order to do it properly. One is the options appraisal
	study to which I have referred. It is currently in draft form and will be published very soon. The other is the risk assessment. The two need to tie in together because we cannot otherwise make a determination on which option to choose, or on whether to choose a mixture of some of the options, in order to obviate the various risks that might be posed by contaminants across this complicated site. I think it is true to say that SEPA now agrees that both those elements will be necessary in order to plan credibly and comprehensively for the future at Dalgety Bay. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is getting a sense that those two things are now coming together very quickly, and that we will be in a position to make a determination on this matter, which I hope he will find satisfactory, very soon.

Gordon Brown: rose—

Andrew Murrison: Before the right hon. Gentleman intervenes again, may I just comment on the objects that were found and the influence they had on the assessment of risk? As I said, the risk was determined at one in a million. That went down to one in 10 million. It was the same organisation that did the assessments. What had changed were the mitigation measures taken, notwithstanding the finding of the four high-intensity objects.

Gordon Brown: I accept what the Minister says, but the health protection organisation that advises him has said that this work has to be done. I repeat: the clean-up will have to happen. It is right that the engineering options are investigated in detail so we can target where the remedial work must be done, but I put this again to the Minister, as I think he misunderstood me: when he publishes his options paper in January, having a range of all possible options will simply mean another few months of delay. Can he not narrow down the options by January, so that we can then set a realistic timetable to get the work done, and proper funding for it, as well as the public consultation exercise? There is one kind of options paper that looks at everything. There is a specific type of options paper, which was promised and which should be done by January, that looks at the main and realistic options for cleaning up as soon as possible.

Andrew Murrison: Yes, of course, but it is not a decision to be taken unilaterally by the MOD; SEPA will wish to take a view and it has a copy of the draft paper already. It will want to make a determination, it has said, once it is in possession of the risk assessment to which it has contributed and, indeed, which it has formed in a way, because it has insisted on particular data sets making up that exercise.

Lindsay Roy: Does the Minister accept that the MOD cannot abdicate its responsibility in this area?

Andrew Murrison: The MOD has consistently made clear that as the default position it will accept its legal responsibilities, but that it wants to go beyond that and make sure—without the intervention of expensive lawyers who will wrap us up for years—that we take action by negotiation with all interested parties so we can get a plan that will satisfy the right hon. Gentleman and his constituents. Our position in respect of liability has not changed at all.
	In its draft report, COMARE says that
	“we recommend that, in conjunction with all stakeholders, an evaluation of the means of remediation should be instituted immediately considering efficacy, practicability and cost.”
	I wish to conclude this evening by saying that we could not agree more. To go back to my opening remarks, I sincerely hope very much that while the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath has been assiduous in bringing this matter to the House—I commend him for that—he will not have to be here for a fifth time in another six months.

Thomas Docherty: Further to the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) and I have made to the Minister about submarines, will he take the opportunity to give real cast-iron guarantees to my constituents and those of my right hon. Friend that there will be no attempt to move on these submarines until this is all joined up going forward?

Andrew Murrison: The hon. Gentleman is talking about the submarine dismantling project and will be aware that there are seven hulls currently at Rosyth awaiting dismantling. Their cores have been removed; he knows that. The pressurised vessels that contain those cores remain and because of the exposure to radiation over the years they have become intermediate level waste and need to be disposed off responsibly. The hon. Gentleman will probably be aware—because Babcock has briefed MPs and the councils—that Babcock is not interested in storing the intermediate level waste. It is difficult to see how this becomes a relevant factor in the context of Rosyth.
	I am very grateful for the opportunity to come here to talk about Dalgety Bay again. I hope that I have made it clear that I take a personal interest in this; I hope the right hon. Gentleman is reassured by that. I will do my utmost to make sure that this process is moved on as swiftly as possible
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.